Skip to main content

Full text of "Blood atonement and the origin of plural marriage : a discussion"

See other formats

Blood  Atoiienient 
and  the  Origin  of 

Plural  Marriigle 



Correspondence    befween 


of    ihe   Chuich    :f    Jesus   Christ   of   Latfer-ctay    Saints 


MR.  RICHARD  C.   EVAr-4r, 

Second    Counselor   in    the    Presidency    f>f   the 

'Reorganized'    Church 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Consortium  of  Church  Libraries  and  Archives 


"To  correct  misrepresentation,  we  adopt  self  representation." 

— ^John  Taylor. 

Blood  Atonement 


Origin  of  Plural  Marriage 


Correspondence  between  Elder  Joseph  F.  ^^mjth,  (Jr.,) 
of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints,  and  Mr. 
Richard  C.  Evans,  second  counselor  (1905)  in  the  Presidency 
of  the  "Reorganized"  Church.  A  conclusive  refutation  of  the 
false  charges  persistently  made  by  ministers  of  the  "Reorgan- 
ized" Church  against  the  Latter-day  Saints  and  their  belief. 
Also  a  supplement  containing  a  number  of  affidavits  and 
other   matters   bearing   on   the   subjects. 

The  Df.shret  News  Phess 

Salt  Lake  Citv.  Utah 

printed  in  u.s.a. 

Ralph   E.  Woolley  Library 



And  Ihe  Origin  of  Plural  Marriage 


The  correspondence  in  this  pamphlet  was  brought  aboui 
through  the  wilful  misrepresentation  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Latter- 
day  Saints  and  the  unwarranted  abuse  of  the  authorities  of  the 
Church  by  Mr.  Richard  C.  Evans,  in  an  interview  which  ap- 
peared in  the  Toronto  (Canada)  Daily  Star  of  January  28,  1905. 
A  copy  of  the  interview  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  writer, 
who,  on  February  19th  following,  replied  to  Mr,  Evans  in  an 
open  letter  which  was  published  in  the  Toronto  Star  on  or  about 
the  25th  of  the  month.*  This  'open  letter  was  answered  by  Mr. 
Evans  in  a  personal  letter,  and  on  the  23rd  of  May,  a  rejoinder  to 
his  reply  was  sent  to  Mr.  Evans  at  his  home  in  London,  Ontario, 
Canada.  In  all,  four  communications — including  the  interview — 
have  passed  between  us,  and  all  of  these  four  communications  are 
here  reproduced  in  full.  A  copy  of  the  open  letter  which  appeared 
in  the  Star,  was  also  sent  to  Mr.  Evans  who  acknowledged  its 
receipt.  Nothing  more  was  done  in  regard  to  this  correspond- 
ence until  August  17th  and  24th,  when  an  article  containing  a 
portion  of  it  appeared  in  the  Zion's  Ensign,  published  by  the 
"Reorganized"  church  at  Independence,  Jackson  County,  Mis- 
souri, under  the  title:  "Statements  Authenticated,"  in  which  it 
was  made  to  appear  that  the  full  and  complete  communications 
were  reproduced.  But  this,  however,  was  not  the  case. 

*As  I  did  not  receive  a  copy  of  the  Toronto  Star  I  cannot  positively 
say  that  my  article  appeared  in  full,  but  if  it  did  not  Mr.  Evans  is  still  with- 
out excuse  for  not  considering  the  entire  matter  for  he  received  personally 
a  duplicate  copy  of  the  article  sent  the  Star  which  contained  those  portions 
he  has  failed  to  include  in  his  "entire  matter"  in  the  Zion's  Ensign. 



In  a  letter  from  Mr.  Evans  to  the  editor  of  the  Ensign  which 
accompanied  the  above  mentioned  article,   he  said: 

Believing  that  good  will  be  accomplished  by  the  publication  of  the 
entire  matter,  I  herewith  mail  you  the  referred  to  matter. 

From  this  it  would  naturally  be  supposed  that  the  complete 
correspondence  would  be  given.  However  I  was  not  surprised 
to  see  that  Mr.  Evans'  side  of  the  controversy  was  in  full,  while 
a  large  portion  of  my  first  communication  had  been  purposely 
suppressed;  and  that  my  second  letter  did  not  appear  at  all!  And 
thus  was  the  "entire  matter"  given  to  the  readers  of  the  Ensign 
that  "good"  might  be  "accomplished."   (?) 

The  parts  that  were  purposely  left  out  of  my  communica- 
tion by  Mr.  Evans,  were  most  vital  to  the  subject  and  have  been 
indicated  as  they  appear  in  the  body  of  this  work  by  being  placed 
in  italics,  excepting  a  few  minor  matters  which  he  omitted  that 
I  have  not  mentioned,  nevertheless  matters  that  throw  light 
upon  the  subject. 

One  of  these  quotations  was  in  relation  to  two  articles  in 
the  first  volume  of  the  Saints'  Herald  which  were  important, 
coming,  as  they  did  from  the  "enemy's"  camp.  Here  is  the 
omitted  part: 

If  you  believe  your  statement  to  be  true,  will  you  kindly  explain  the 
following  passage  in  the  Saints'  Herald,  your  official  organ,  volume  i,  page  9, 
— it  would  be  well  for  you  to  read  the  entire  chapter,  which  is  entided 
"Polygamy."  The  quotation  is  as  follows: 

"The  death  of  the  Prophet  is  one  fact  that  has  been  realized,  although 
he  abhorred  and  repented  of  this  iniquity  (meaning  "polygamy")  before 
his  death.  This  branch  of  the  subject  we  shall  leave  to  some  of  our  brethren, 
who  are  qualified  to  explain  it  satisfactorily." 

In  the  same  volume,  page  27,  what  is  meant  by  the  following:  "He, 
(Joseph  Smith)  caused  the  revelation  on  the  subject  (polygamy)  to  be 
burned,  and  when  he  voluntarily  came  to  Nauvoo  and  resigned  himself  into 
the  arms  of  his  enemies  he  said  that  he  was  going  to  Carthage  to  die.  At 
that  time  he  also  said  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  that  accursed  spiritual  wife 
doctrine  he  would  not  have  come  to  that."  Kindly  read  the  context. 

There  is  more  evidence  that  can  be  produced,  but  if  you  will  explain 
this  it  may  suffice. 

The  first  half  of  the  succeeding  paragraph  was  quoted  but 
the  second  half  was  omitted.  I  quote  in  full  with  the  part  sup- 
pressed in  Italics: 


In  the  light  of  the  knowledge  I  have  received  and  the  evidence  at  my 
command,  I  know  that  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  made  no  such  statement 
as  the  above,  and  that  he  did  not  have  the  revelation  burned.  There  is,  how- 
ever, value  in  the  above  statements  from  your  "Herald,"  for  they  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  origin  and  introduction  of  the  principle  of  plural  marriage  and 
revelation  concerning  the  same. 

It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  Mr.  Evans  felt  "that  good  v^ill  be 
accomplished  by  the  publication  of  the  "entire  matter";  and  for 
that  reason  he  omitted  this  evidence  which  the  leaders  of  the 
"Reorganization"  have  been  trying  so  successfully  to  destroy 
for  lo  these  many  years.  The  tv^^o  articles  in  the  Saints'  Herald 
have  caused  the  leaders  of  that  sect  no  end  of  trouble,  and  today 
they  are  in  the  same  fix  in  regard  to  plural  marriage  that  the 
first  editor  of  that  paper  was  when  he  wrote,  for  they  cannot 
explain  the  Prophet's  connection  with  the  principle  "satisfactorily," 
and  never  will  be  able  to  until  they  acknowledge  the  truth. 

Another  of  Mr.  Evans'  ommissions  that  "good"  might  be 
"accomplished"  {})  is  the  following  paragraph  in  reference  to 
President  Brigham  Young: 

It  is  true  that  President  Young  was  elected  president  at  Kanesville;  but 
on  wh?«-  '^rounds  do  you  charge  him  with  holding  the  office  in  trust  for  the 
"dead  pusident's  son?"  Do  you  not  know  that  such  a  statement — contrary 
to  the  written  word — was  antagonistic  to  the  teachings  of  President  Young, 
as  recorded  m  the  Times  and  Seasons,  as  well  as  since  that  dme? 

Will  you  please  explain  on  what  grounds  you  charge  President  Young 
with  being  "under  suspicion  at  the  time  of  Joseph  Smith's  death?"  Am  I  to 
infer  by  this  that  you  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  Brigham  Young  was  in 
any  way  responsible  for  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith?  The  Prophet  never  had 
a  truer  friend.  You  know  that  at  the  dme  of  the  martyrdom  Brigham  Young 
was  on  a  mission  away  from  home.  If  this  is  the  inference  you  wish  to 
convey,  it  is  not  only  contemptible   but   viciously   false. 

It  appears  from  the  actions  of  many  of  those  who  fight  the 
Latter-day  Saints,  that  they  fully  realize  their  inability  to  suc- 
cessfully oppose  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  with  truth  as  a 
weapon  of  attack,  and,  therefore,  resort  to  falsehood,  vilification 
and  abuse,  attempting  to  blind  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with 
the  facts.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church  has  survived  all  such  on- 
slaughts   and    continues    to    spread    throughout    the    earth,    as    a 


witness  against  those  who  have  adopted  such  hase  methods  for  its 
overthrow.  It  will  continue  to  spread,  bless  mankind  and  pre- 
pare all  who  accept  it,  and  follow  its  teachings  in  righteousness, 
for  an  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  Reorganite  ministers  are  generally  in  the  front  rank 
among  those  who  oppose  the  Church  and  resort  to  tactics  of  a 
doubtful  character.  They  travel  from  place  to  place,  never  los- 
ing an  opportunity  in  private,  on  the  rostrum  or  through  the 
press,  to  "explain  the  radical  difference"  between  their  organiza- 
tion and  that  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints, 
and  in  denouncing  "the  Utah  Mormon  and  his  iniquities."  On 
such  occasions  they  will  quote  garbled  and  isolated  extracts 
from  sermons  and  from  writings  by  Elders  of  the  Church, 
taking  particular  pains  to  cover  up  the  context  in  order  to  preju- 
dice the  uninformed  mind.  In  this  way  many  a  harmless,  in- 
offensive passage  has  been  made  to  do  great  execution  in  some 
quarters  and  among  a  certain  class.  Nor  is  this  all.  Nearly 
every  crime  that  was  committed  within  a  thousand  miles  of 
Utah  in  early  days  and  many  that  were  invented  out  of  whole 
cloth,  are  brought  to  bear  against  the  "dreadful  Mormons,"  the 
Church  and  the  Gospel,  that  they  may  be  stigmatized  and 
made  to  appear  vile  and  hateful  before  the  world.  So  much 
of  their  time  is  spent  in  this  way  that  they  can  surely  have  but 
litde  left  in  which  to  tell  the  world  what  they  themselves  be- 

No  reason  except  that  of  misrepresentation  and  jealousy  can 
be  assigned  for  actions  of  this  kind.  These  men  oppose  the  truth 
in  a  spirit  of  jealousy  and  to  cover  up  their  own  false  position, 
and  by  such  an  attitude  prove  that  they  are  ashamed  of  their 
own  faith,  being  conscious  of  its  weakness. 

The  supplement  following  the  correspondence  is  composed 
of  a  number  of  affidavits  and  other  testimony  bearing  on  the 
subjects  under  discussion,  which,  it  is  hoped,  will  be  of  interest 
and  perhaps  of  value  to  the  reader. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  September  5,  1905. 




JAN.  28,  1905 


The  name  Mormon  does  not  please  Toronto's  six  hundred 
baptized  Latter-day  Saints,  not  to  mention  the  fifty  thousand 
others  scattered  over  the  globe. 

This  fact  was  emphasized  today,  when  R.  C.  Evans,  one 
of  the  three  members  of  the  Presidency,  explained  the  radical 
difference  between  the  two  denominations.  Mr.  Evans,  who 
reached  Toronto  a  few  days  ago  to  spend  a  month  here,  de- 
nounces the  "Utah  Mormon  and  his  iniquities." 

"We  do  not  believe  in  polygamy,  blood  atonement,  and 
kindred  evils,"  he  said  to  the  Star  last  night  at  142  Peter  street, 
where  he  is  visiting,  "They  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord." 
The  term  Mormon  is  offensive  to  us,  because  it  is  associated 
in  the  public  mind  with  the  practices  that  I  have  specified. 
The  other  night,  while  I  was  holding  a  service  here,  four  Utah 
Eiders  came  to  me.  I  referred  to  polygamy,  and  they  defended 
it.  'We  endorse  it,'  they  told  me,  'but  we  don't  practice  it.' 
Three  women  were  with  them,  and  I  said  to  one,  'Do  you 
believe  in  polygamy?'  'I  do,'  she  replied,  'and  I  know  that  God 
will  punish  the  United  States  for  prohibiting  it.'  I  understand 
that  there  are  five  Utah  elders  in  Toronto  at  the  present  time, 
and  in  addresses  here  I  will  expose  polygamy  and  blood  atone- 


Mr.  Evans  is  forty-three  years  old,  but  doesn't  look  his 
age.  He  is  rather  below  medium  height,  strongly  built,  wears 
his  black  hair  short,  and  his  round,  slightly  olive  face  is  clean 
shaven.  He  is  animated  in  manner,  and  though  his  English  is 
occasionally  at  fault,  he  speaks  fluently  and  well.  He  was  born 


at  St.  Andrew's  near  Montreal,  but  his  ancestry  is  not  confined 
to  any  one  country,  Irish,  Welsh  and  German  blood  flows  in  his 
veins  and  his  somewhat  nasal  voice  is  typically  American. 

"I  was  baptized  in  1876,"  he  said,  "ordained  a  priest  in 
1882,  became  an  elder  in  1884,  entered  the  quorum  of  seventy 
in  1886,  was  chosen  one  of  the  twelve  aposdes  in  1897;  and  in 
1902,  was  selected  one  of  President  Joseph  Smith's  two  coun- 
selors, the  other  being  his  eldest  son,  Frederick  M.  Smith.  I 
was  the  pastor  of  the  London,  Ontario,  church  from  1882  to  1886, 
and  have  given  particular  attention  to  Canada.  We  occupy  a 
rented  church  on  the  corner  of  Sumac  and  St.  David  streets,  a 
new  church  on  Camden  street,  and  another  at  Humber  Bay, 
practically  three  congregations  in  Toronto." 

The  Latter-day  Saints  and  the  Utah  Mbrmons,  according  to 
Mr.  Evans,  are  frequently  confused,  greatly  to  his  regret. 


"My  President  Joseph  Smith,"  he  explained,  "is  the  oldest 
son  of  Joseph  Smith,  who,  when  a  boy  of  fifteen,  was  directed 
to  the  mound  wherein  he  found  the  golden  plates  from  which 
he  compiled  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

"He  organized  his  church  in  1830,  when  25  years  old,  and 
between  1830  and  1844  his  following  numbered  200,000.  In 
1844  he  was  shot  and  killed  for  his  anti-slavery  sympathies,*  and 
with  him  died  his  brother  Hyrum.  John  Taylor,  a  Toronto  con- 
vert of  1838,  was  wounded,  but  recovered.  Joseph  Smith's  city  of 
Nauvoo,  Illinois,  was  wrecked,  and  in  1847,  at  Kanesville,  Iowa, 
Brigham  Young  was  elected  president,  though  he  still  professed 
to  hold  the  office  in  trust  for  the  dead  president's  eldest  son,  also, 

*Mr.  Evans'  declaration  that  the  Prophet  was  killed  for  his  anti- 
slavery  sympathies  is  rather  surprising,  when  we  consider  that  he  was  in 
one  of  the  anti-slave  states,  and  the  mob  at  Carthage  was  largely  com- 
posed of  men  with  very  strong  "anti-slavery  sympathies."  The  fact  is  he  and 
his  brother  Hyrum  were  martyred  for  their  religion  of  which  Celestial  Mar- 
riage, (including  Plural  Marriage)  formed  a  part.  One  of  the  charges  made 
against  them  was  that  of  teaching  "polygamy." 


Joseph,  whom  the  father  had  consecrated  as  his  successor.* 
Brigham  Young  reorganizedt  the  church,  rebaptized  every  mem- 
ber, including  himself,  and  in  1848  (1847)  he.  reached  Salt  Lake 
City.  With  him  went  the  widow  and  children  of  Hyrum  Smith, 
whose  son  Joseph  F.,  is  now  president  of  the  Utah  church.  The 
widow  of  the  first  president  had  refused  to  follow  Young,  and 
her  boy  Joseph  was  brought  up  in  his  father's  footsteps,  hating 
polygamy  and  other  impurities.  'Young  Joseph,'  as  he  was  called, 
connected  himself  with  the  Saints,  who  had  rejected  Brigham 
Young,  and  was  elected  their  president.  He  was  then  28  years 
old.  In  1872  he  was  called  to  Washington,  a  report  having 
reached  the  Government  that  Mormonism  had  again  sprung  up 
in  Illinois.  He  disproved  the  charge  of  polygamy  and  blood 
atonement,  and  demonstrated  that  Latter-day  Saintism  was  in 
keeping  with  the  law  and  supported  by  the  Bible.  Incorporation 
was  granted,  and  we  have  prospered. 


"Brigham  Young,  who  had  been  under  suspicion  at  Joseph 
Smith's  death,  introduced  polygamy  and  blood  atonement  at 
Salt  Lake  City.  Blood  atonement  meant  death  to  anyone  who 
left  his  church.  Brigham  Young's  argument  was  that  the  apos- 
tate whose  throat  was  cut  from  ear  to  ear,  the  favorite  way, 
saved  his  soul,  but  his  object  was  to  keep  his  people  under  his 
iron  heel.  Young  was  a  shrewd,  bad  man. 

"I  spent  a  day  and  a  half  with  Joseph  F.  Smith  at  Salt 
Lake  City  three  years  ago,  and  he  gave  me  a  group  photo  of 
himself,  his  surviving  five  wives,  and  thirty-six  children.  His 
first  wife  was  dead.  She  died  broken-hearted  and  insane.  Per- 
sonally, Joseph  F.  Smith  is  a  genial,  kindly  man,  but  he  and  I 
differed  on  Polygamy.  I  told  him  it  was  vile  and  wicked,  always 

*In  proof  that  the  Prophet  did  not  ordain  or  consecrate  his  son  as  his 
successor,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  affidavits  of  John  W.  Rigdon  and 
Bathsheba  W.  Smith. 

tAs  the  Church  was  never  disorganized,  it  could  not  be  reorganized. 
Mr.  Evans  has  made  a  mistake.  It  was  the  Quorum  of  the  First  Presidency 
that  was  disorganized  at  the  Prophet's  death  and^  which  was  reorganized 
when  Brigham  Young  was  elected  President,  and  not  the  Church. 


had  been,  and  always  would  be.  In  apf)earance  he  resembles  his 
cousin,  my  own  president." 

Mr.  Evans  is  married,  and  has  two  children.  The  three  faces 
look  at  you  from  his  watch  case.  He  has  recently  returned  from 
the  northwest.  His  faith  has  several  thriving  churches  there,  he 
says,  while  the  Utah  Mormons  are  settled  in  one  part  of  Alberta. 



The  following  letter  was  published  in  the  Toronto  Daily 
Star  in  answer  to  the  false  charges  which  appeared  in  Mr.  Evans' 

Salt  Lake  City,  Feb.  19,  1905. 

Mr.  R.  C.  Evans, 

Counselor  in  Presidency  of  Reorganized  Church. 

Sir: — I  have  before  me  a  copy  of  the  Toronto  Daily  Star, 
bearing  date  of  January  28,  last,  in  which  there  is  a  column  on 
the  front  page,  purporting  to  be  an  interview,  by  a  repre- 
sentative of  that  paper  with  you,  in  which  I  desire  to  call  your 

In  doing  so  I  desire  to  be  fair  and  dispassionate,  and  also 
candid,  and  I  would  like  it  if  you  would  receive  and  reply  to 
this  communication  in  the  spme  spirit  and  manner  to  me  per- 

You  are  reported  as  not  being  "pleased,"  nor  Toronto's  six 
hundred  baptized  members,  with  the  name  "Mormon."  "This 
fact,"  says  the  Star,  "was  emphasized  today  when  R.  C.  Evans, 
one  of  the  three  members  of  the  Presidency  explained  the  radical 
difference  between  the  two  denominations.  Mr.  Evans  *  *  *  de- 
nounced the  Utah  Mormon  and  his  iniquities."  Then  you  are 
made  to  say:  "The  term  Mormon  is  offensive  to  us,  because  it 
is  associated  in  the  public  mind  with  the  practices  that  I  have 
specified."  That  is,  the  alleged  practices  of  the  Utah  "Mormons," 
namely,  "polygamy  and  blood  atonement." 

Did  you  know  that  "the  term  Mormon"  has  always  been 
applied  to  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints?  That 
the  name  attached  to  the  Church  with  the  publication  and  pro- 
mulgation of  the  Book  of  Mormon?  That  it  was  first  applied  by 
the  enemies  of  the  Church  as  an  opprobrium;  but  that  during  the 
lifetime  of  Joseph  Smith  the  Martyr,  and  ever  since  it  has  been 
a  term  accepted  by  the  Church  because  of  popular  custom,  as  an 

If,  then,  the  name  is  so  distasteful  to  you  and  your  fellows 


in  Canada  and  throughout  the  world,  although  it  be  on  the 
grounds  you  have  named,  why  do  you  not  discard  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  from  whence  the  name  is  derived,  as  well  as  the  name. 
Is  not  the  term  5oo^  of  Mormon  as  closely  associated  in  the 
public  mind  with  "polygamy  and  blood  atonement,"  as  is  the 
name  of  the  Book?  How  are  you  going  to  disassociate  the  book 
itself  from  the  name  as  commonly  applied  to  the  Church,  since 
this  name  has  been  attached  to  the  Church  from  the  beginning, 
and  before  the  alleged  "practices"  of  the  "Utah  Mormon"  gained 
such  publicity?  Really,  I  thinly  it  would  be  quite  p-oper  for  those 
holding  the  view  which  you  are  said  to  have  expressed,  not  only 
to  renounce  the  name  "Mormon"  as  applied  to  the  Church  but 
also  the  Book^  itself* 

You  do  not  believe  in  blood  atonement.  Is  not  this  the  more 
reason  why  you  should  discard  the  Book  of  Mormon?  Are  you 
not  at  issue  with  the  teachings  not  only  of  that  book,  but  also 
with  those  of  the  Bible  on  this  matter.  If  so,  why  not  discard 
the  Bible,  and  while  you  are  about  it,  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and 
Covenants  also?  Both  of  these,  as  well  as  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
teach  the  doctrine  of  "blood  atonement,"  and  they  are  all  "asso- 
ciated in  the  public  mind"  with  the  alleged  "practices"  of  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints. 

Let  us  consider  this  subject  of  "blood  atonement." 
Book  of  Mormon: 

Mosiah  3:11. — His  blood  atoneth  for  the  sins  of  those  who  have  fallen 
by  the  transgression  of  Adam.  Verse  15. — And  understood  not  that  the  law 
of  Moses  availeth  nothing  except  it  were  through  the  atonement  of  his 
blood.  Verse   16.  Even  so  the  blood   of  Christ  atoneth   for   their   sins. 

Alma  21:9. — Now  Aaron  began  to  open  the  Scriptures  unto  them  con- 
cerning the  coming  of  Christ,  and  also  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  that  there  could  be  no  redemption  for  mankind,  save  it  was 
through  the  death  and  suffering  of  Christ,  and  the  atonement  of  his  blood. 

I  Nephi  12:10. — Their  garments  are  made  white  in  his  blood. 

II  Nephi  9:7. — And  if  so,    (not  an  infinite  atonement)    this   flesh  must 

*This  sentence  in  italics  was  omitted  in  Mr.  Evans'  publication  of  the 
entire  matter  in   the  Zion's  Ensign,   August   17th,    1905. 


have  laid  down  to  rot  and  to  crumble  to  its  mother  earth,  to  rise  no  more. 
From  the  Bible: 

Mark  14:22-25. — And  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  and 
brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said:  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body. 

And  he  took  the  cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave  it  to 
them:  and  they  all  drank  of  it. 

And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament 
which   is   shed   for   many. 

Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine, 
until  that  day  that  I  drink  it  new  in  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

From  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants: 

Section  45:4. —  (Utah  edition)  Saying,  Father,  behold  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  him  who  did  no  sin,  in  whom  thou  wast  well  pleased;  behold  the 
blood  of  thy  Son  which  was  shed — the  blood  of  him  whom  thou  gavest 
that  thyself  might  be  glorified. 

Section  74:7. — But  little  children  are  holy,  being  sanctified  through  the 
atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  this  is  what  the  scriptures  mean. 

Section  76:39-41. — For  all  the  rest  shall  be  brought  forth  by  the  res- 
urrection of  the  dead,  through  the  triumph  and  the  glory  of  the  Lamb,  who 
was  slain,  who  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  before  the  worlds  were  made. 
And  this  is  the  gospel,  the  glad  tidings  which  the  voice  out  of  the  heavens 
bore  record  unto  us.  That  he  came  into  the  world,  even  Jesus,  to  be  cruci- 
fied for  the  world,  and  to  bear  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  to  sanctify  the 
world,  and   to  cleanse  it  from  all  unrighteousness. 

Section  29:1. — Listen  to  the  voice  of  Jesus  Christ,  your  Redeemer,  the 
Great  I  AM,  whose  arm  of  mercy  hath  atoned  for  your  sins.  Verse  17. — 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  because  of  the  wickedness  of  the  world,  that  I 
will  take  vengeance  upon  the  wicked,  for  they  will  not  repent;  for  the  cup 
of  mine  indignation  is  full;  for  behold,  my  blood  shall  not  cleanse  them  if 
they  hear  me  not. 


But  the  report  says:  "This  doctrine  was  introduced  by 
Brigham  Young"  and  that  it  meant  "death  to  anyone  who 
left  the  Church  *  *  *  that  the  apostate  whose  throat  was  cut 
from  ear  to  ear  *  *  *  saved  his  soul."  why  you  made  this 
statement  you  best  know;  but  were  you  not  aware  that  it  was 
but  the  repetition  of  the  ravings  of  enemies  of  the  Church, 
without  one  grain  of  truth.''  Did  you  not  know  that  not  a  single 
individual  was  ever  "blood  atoned,"  as  you  are  pleased  to  call  it, 
for  apostasy  or   any   other  cause.?    Were   you   not   aware,   in   re- 


peating  this  false  charge,  that  it  was  made  by  the  most  bittei 
enemies  of  the  Church  before  the  death  of  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith?  Do  you  know  of  anyone  whose  blood  was  ever  shed  by 
the  command  of  the  Church,  or  members  thereof,  to  "save  his 
soul?"  Did  you  not  know  that  you  were  embittering  the  people 
against  the  "Mormon"  Elders,  and  that  just  such  malicious 
charges  and  false  insinuations  have  made  martyrs  for  the  Church, 
whose  blood  does  not  "cease  to  come  up  into  the  ears  of  the 
Lord  of  Sabaoth?" 

Never  in  the  history  of  this  people  can  the  time  be  pointed 
to  when  the  Church  ever  attempted  to  pass  judgment  on,  or 
execute  an  apostate  as  per  your  statement.  There  are  men  living 
in  Utah  today  who  left  the  Church  in  the  earliest  history  of  our 
State  who  feel  as  secure,  and  are  just  as  secure  and  free  from 
molestation  from  their  former  associates  as  you  or  any  other  man 
could  be. 


The  Latter-day  Saints  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  the  blood 
of  Christ.  They_believe  that  through  obedience  to  the  laws  and 
ordinances  of  the  Gospel  they  obtain  a  remission  of  sins;  but 
this  jcould  riot  be  if  ChrisLJiad  not  died  ior  J  hern.  If  you  did 
believe  in  blood  atonement,  I  might  ask  you  why  the  blood  of 
Christ  was  shed?  and  in  whose  stead  was  it  shed?  I  might  ask 
you  to  explain  the  words  of  Paul:  "Without  shedding  of  blood 
is  no  remission." 

Are  you  aware  that  there  are  certain  sins  that  man  may 
commit  for  which  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  does  not  avail? 
Do  you  not  know,  too,  that  this  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon'  And  is  not  this  further  reason  why  you  should 
discard  the  Book  as  well  as  the  name?  Is  it  not  safe  for  us  to 
rely  upon  the  scriptures  for  the  solution  of  problems  of  this  kind? 
Let  me  quote: 

From  the  Book  of  Mormon: 

II  Nephi  9:35. — Wo  unto  the  murderer  who  deliberately  killeth,  for 
he  shall  die. 

Alma  1:13,  14. — And  thou  hast  shed  the  blood  of  a  righteous  man,  yea, 
a  man  who  has  done  much  good  among  this  people;  and  were  we  to  spare 

thee,  his  blood  would  come  upon  us  for  vengeance. 


Alma  42:19. — Now,  if  there  were  no  law  given — if  a  man  murdered  he 
should  die,  would  he  be  afraid  he  would  die  if  he  should  murder? 

From  the  Bible: 

Genesis  9:12,  13. — And  whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his 
blood  be  shed;  for  man  shall  not  shed  the  blood  of  man. 

For  a  commandment  I  give,  that  every  man's  brother  shall  preserve  the 
life  of  man,  for  in  mine  own  image  have  I  made  man.   (Inspired  translation.) 

Luke  11:50. — That  the  blood  of  all  the  prophets,  which  was  shed  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  may  be  required  of  this  generation. 

Hebrews  9:22. — And  almost  all  things  are  by  the  law  purged  with 
blood;  and  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission. 

Hebrews  10:26-29. — For  if  we  sin  wilfully,  after  that  we  have  received 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins. 

He  that  despised  Moses'  law  died  without  mercy  under  two  or  three 

Of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  suppose  ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy, 
who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood 
of  the  covenant,   wherewith   he  was  sanctified,   an   unholy   thing. 

(I  commend   to  you   the   careful   reading  of  these   two   chapters:) 

I  John  3:15. — No  murderer  hath  eternal  life  abiding  in  him. 

I  John  5:16. — If  any  man  see  his  brother  sin  a  sin  which  is  not  unto 
death,  he  shall  ask,  and  he  shall  give  him  life  for  them  that  sin  not  unto 
death.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death:   I  do   not  say  that  he  shall  pray  for  it. 

From  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants: 

Section  87:7. — That  the  cry  of  the  saints,  and  of  the  blood  of  the  saints, 
shall  cease  to  come  up  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sabbath,  from  the  earth, 
to  be  avenged  of  their  enemies. 

Section  101:80. — And  for  this  purpose  have  I  established  the  constitution 
of  this  land,  by  the  hands  of  wise  men,  whom  I  raised  up  unto  this  very 
purpose,  and   redeemed   the  land   by  the  shedding  of  blood. 

Section  42:18,  19. — And  now,  behold,  I  speak  unto  the  church.  Thou 
shalt  not  kill;  and  he  that  kills  shall  not  have  forgiveness  in  this  world,  nor 
in  the  world  to  come. 

And  again,  I  say,  thou  shalt  not  kill;  but  he  that  killeth  shall   die. 

Verse  79. — And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  if  any  persons  among  you 
shall  kill,  they  shall  be  delivered  up  and  dealt  with  according  to  the  laws 
of  the  land;  for  remember  that  he  hath  no  forgiveness,  and  it  shall  be 
proved  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land. 


In  pursuance  of,  and  in  harmony  with  this  scriptural  doc- 
trine, which  has  been  the  righteous  law  from  the  days  of  Adam 


to  the  present  time,  the  founders  of  Utah  incorporated  in  the 
laws  of  the  Territory  provisions  for  the  capital  punishment  of 
those  who  wilfully  shed  the  blood  of  their  fellow  man.  This 
law,  which  is  now  the  law  of  the  State,  granted  unto  the  con- 
demned murderer  the  privilege  of  choosing  for  himself  whether 
he  die  by  hanging,  or  whether  he  be  shot,  and  thus  have  his 
blood  shed  in  harmony  with  the  law  of  God;  and  thus  atone, 
so  far  as  it  is  In  his  power  to  atone,  for  the  death  of  his  victim. 
Almost  without  exception  the  condemned  party  chooses  the  lat- 
ter death.  This  is  by  the  authority  of  the  law  of  the  land,  not 
that  of  the  Church.  This  law  was  placed  on  the  statutes  through 
the  eflorts  of  the  "Mormon"  legisflators,  and  grants  to  the 
accused  the  right  of  jury  trial.  It  is  from  this  that  the  vile 
charge,  which  you  are  pleased  to  repeat,  has  been  maliciously 
misconstrued  by  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  who  prefer  to  be- 
lieve a  lie.  When  men  accuse  the  Church  of  practicing  "blood 
atonement"  on  those  who  deny  the  faith,  or,  for  that  matter,  on 
any  living  creature,  they  know  that  they  bear  false  witness,  and 
they  shall  stand  condemned  before  the  judgment  seat  of  God. 


Since  the  action  taken  by  the  United  States  government, 
and  also  by  the  Church,  in  regard  to  plural  marriage,  I  shall 
not  discuss  its  virtues  nor  answer  arguments  in  opposition  to 
that  principle  as  a  principle  of  our  faith.  As  you,  however,  are 
reported  to  have  said  that  "Brigham  Young  introduced"  that 
doctrine  "in  Salt  Lake  City,"  I  would  be  pleased  if  you  would 
explain,  as  a  matter  of  history,  why  Sidney  Rigdon,  before 
"President  Young  introduced"  the  doctrine,  declared  that  the 
principle  of  plural  marriage  was  introduced,  to  his  knowledge, 
by  Joseph  Smith  the  Prophet,  and  that  he,  Sidney  Rigdon,  re- 
jected that  doctrine  and  "warned  Joseph  Smith  and  his  family" 
that  it  would  bring  ruin  upon  them.  You  will  find  this  in  the 
Messenger  and  Advocate,  published  in  June,  1846,  volume  2, 
page  475,  number  6.  Will  you  kindly  explain  why  this  same 
Sidney  Rigdon  practiced  polygamy,  which  he  so  fervently  con- 
demns.'' Will  you  kindly  explain  why  Lyman  Wight,  James 
J.  Strang,  Gladden  Bishop,  William  Smith,  and  others,  none  of 
whom  had  much  love  for  President  Young  and  did  not  follow 


him,  also  taught  and  practiced  polygamy  before  plural  marriage 
was  "introduced  by  President  Young."  If  you  doubt  this,   I  will 
gladly  furnish  you  with  the  proof.  Indeed,  you  may  find  a  great 
deal  of  it  in  the  third  volume  of  your  church  history. 

If  you  believe  your  statement  to  be  true,  will  you  kindly 
explain  the  following  paragraph  in  the  Saints  Herald,  your 
official  organ,  volume  I,  page  9.  It  would  be  well  for  you  to 
read  the  entire  chapter,  which  is  entitled  "polygamy."  The  quota- 
tion is: 

"The  death  of  the  prophet  is  one  fact  that  has  been  realized, 
although  he  abhoired  and  repented  of  this  iniquity  (meaning 
'polygamy')  before  his  death.  This  branch  of  the  subject  we 
shall  leave  to  some  of  our  brethren,  who  are  qualified  to  explain 
it  satisfactorily." 

In  the  same  volume,  page  27,  what  is  meant  by  the  fol- 

"He  (Joseph  Smith)  caused  the  revelation  on  the  subject 
('polygamy')  to  be  burned,  and  when  he  voluntarily  came  to 
Nauvoo  and  resigned  himself  into  the  arms  of  his  enemies  he 
said  that  he  was  going  to  Carthage  to  die.  At  that  time  he  also 
said  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  that  accursed  spiritual  wife 
doctrine,  he  would  not  have  come  to  that."  Kindly  read  the 

There  is  more  evidence  that  can  be  produced,  but  if  you  will 
explain  this  it  may  suffice. 

In  the  light  of  the  knowledge  I  have  received  and  the  evi- 
dence at  my  command,  I  know  that  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith 
made  no  such  statement  as  the  above,  and  that  he  did  not  have 
the  revelation  burned.  There  is,  however,  value  in  the  above 
statements  from  your  "Herald,"  for  they  bear  witness  to  the  ori- 
gin and  introduction  of  the  principle  of  plural  marriage,  and  the 
revelation  concerning  the  same.* 

*The  quotations  from  the  Saints'  Herald  which  are  in  Italics  were  pur- 
posely omitted  from  Mr.  Evans'  "publication  of  the  entire  matter,"  as  it  ap- 
peared in  the  Zion's  Ensign  of  August  7,  1905.  The  reason  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  this  evidence  is  easy  to  discern.  The  authorities  of  the  "Reorganiza- 
tion" have  tried  to  destroy  the  evidence,  that  it  could  not  be  circulated  among 
their  church  members,  therefore  very  few  copies  of  this  particular  Herald 
can  today  be  found. 



In  connection  with  this,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  your 
visit  to  Salt  Lake  City  some  three  years  ago.  At  that  time  you 
met  President  Lorenzo  Snow,  a  man  whose  veracity  cannot 
justly  be  questioned;  you  heard  him  bear  his  testimony  to  the 
effect  that  he  was  taught  that  principle  by  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith,  and  that  the  Prophet  declared  to  Lorenzo  Snow  that  he 
had  married  his  sister,  Eliza  R.  Snow.  You  met  and  conversed 
with  Lucy  Walker  Smith,  and  she  told  you  that  she  was  mar- 
ried to  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1843, 
in  Nauvoo,  Elder  William  Clayton  performing  the  ceremony. 
You  met  Catherine  Phillips  Smith,  who  told  you  she  was  mar- 
ried in  August,  1843,  in  Nauvoo,  to  the  Patriarch  Hyrum  Smith, 
his  brother  Joseph  the  Prophet  officiating  in  that  ceremony. 
You  will  remember  that  the  first  wives  of  both  these  men  were 
living  at  the  time.  I  hardly  think  these  testimonies  have  passed 
from  your  memory  in  so  brief  a  time.  I  am  personally  acquainted 
with  these  women,  and  know  that  they  are  truthful  and  honest — 
honorable  women,  whose  testimonies  should  be  believed. 

In  the  face  of  all  this  evidence,  do  you  think  it  fair  and 
consistent  for  you  and  your  fellow  believers  to  constandy  lay  at 
the  door  of  President  Young  the  responsibility  for  the  "intro- 
duction of  plural  marriage"  and  the  "authorship"  of  the  above 
mentioned  revelation  ? 

My  letter  is  already  long,  but  I  desire  to  briefly  mention 
another  item  or  two. 

In  the  interview  you  are  made  to  say  that  while  on  your 
visit  to  Salt  Lake  City,  you  spent  a  day  and  a  half  with  Joseph 
F.  Smith;  that  you  and  he  "differed  on  polygamy,"  and  that 
you  "told  him  it  was  vile  and  wicked,  always  had  been,  and 
always  would  be."  I  took  occasion  to  ask  my  father  if  you  and 
he  had  discussed  polygamy  at  that  time  and  if  you  had  uttered 
that  above  expression  or  any  other  of  like  nature.  He  replied 
that  he  had  no  discussion  with  you  on  that  subject;  that  you  did 
not  say  one  word  to  him  in  relation  to  polygamy,  either  favor- 
able or  otherwise;  that  your  visit  was  a  social  one,  and  friendly, 
and  was  not  occupied  by  the  discussion  of  any  differences  which 
may  have  existed. 


It  is  true  that  President  Young  was  elected  p'esident  at 
Kanesville,  but  on  what  grounds  do  you  charge  him  with  holding 
the  office  in  trust  for  the  "dead  president's,  son?"  Do  you  not 
\now  that  such  a  statement — contrary  to  the  wntten  word — was 
antagonistic  to  the  teachings  of  President  Young,  as  recorded  in 
the  "Times  and  Seasons,"  as  well  as  since  that   Time? 


Will  you  please  explain  on  what  grounds  you  charge  Presi- 
dent Young  as  being  "u7ider  suspicion  at  the  time  of  Joseph 
Smith's  death?"  Am  I  to  infer  by  this  that  you  mean  to  convey 
the  idea  that  Brigham  Young  was  in  any  way  responsible  for  the 
death  of  Joseph  Smith?  The  Prophet  never  had  a  truer  friend. 
You  \now  that  at  the  time  of  the  martyrdom  Brigham  Young  was 
on  a  mission  away  from.  home.  If  this  is  the  inference  you  wish 
to  convey,  it  is  not  only  contemptible  but  viciously  false.* 

With  reference  to  my  father's  first  wife,  you  say  she  died 
"broken  hearted  and  insane."  If  you  mean  to  insinuate  that  this 
condition,  if  true,  was  the  result  of  any  act  whatever  on  the  part 
of  my  father,  it  is  also  scandalously  false.  I  have  good  reason  to 
believe  that  she  died  neither  broken  hearted  nor  insane.  If  it  were 
true,  I  would  still  think  that  you,  as  a  professed  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  might  employ  your  time  to  better  advantage  than  as  an 
aspersor  or  a  scandal-monger. 


Joseph  F.  Smith,  Jr. 

*These  paragraphs  in  italics  were  also  omitted  from  Mr.  Evans'  "publi- 
cation of  the  entire  matter,"  as  it  appeared  in  the  Ziofi's  Ensign  August  17, 



Mr.  Joseph  F.  Smith,  Jr.: 

Sir: — Your  open  letter  published  in  the  Toronto  Star  for 
February  25,  is  before  me.  You  say:  "I  desire  to  be  fair,  dispas- 
sionate and  also  candid."  Those  who  read  your  letter  will  see 
plainly  that  you  have  mispresented  the  interview,  my  faith  and 
the  facts  concerning  my  visit  to  Salt  Lake,  and  that  you  are 
guilty  of  a  labored  effort  to  cover  up  the  true  facts  regarding 
"blood  atonement,"  "polygamy,"  etc.,  and  my  faith  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  So  much  for  those  desires. 

My  posiition  with  regard  to  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  the 
name  "Mormon,"  is  too  well  known  for  you  to  blind  the  people 
concerning  it.  The  interview  shows  plainly  in  what  sense  "the 
term  'Mormon'  is  offensive  to  us."  Read  it  again,  sir:  "Because 
it  is  associated  in  the  public  mind  with  the  practices  that  I  have 
specified."  The  abominations  of  Brighamism;  namely,  polygamy, 
blood  atonement,  Adam-God,*  and  other  evils  that  have  disgraced 
the  name  throughout  civilization. 

The  true  Church  never  has  adopted  the  name  "Mormon" 
as    being    the    proper    name    of    the    church.    The    Latter-day 

*The  teachings  of  the  Latter-day  Saints  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Godhead  are  clearly  set  forth  in  Elder  B.  H.  Roberts'  valuable  work,  "Mor- 
mon Doctrine  of  Deity."  For  the  belief  of  the  "Mormon"  people  regarding 
Adam  and  his  place  in  the  universe,  attention  is  called  especially  to  chapters 
one,  five  and  six  of  that  work;  also  to  E>octrine  and  Covenants,  sec.  78:15-18, 
sec.  107:53-57  and  Daniel  7:9-14.  In  relation  to  this  matter  I  quote  the  fol- 
lowing from  the  remarks  of  President  Anthon  H.  Lund  delivered  at  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  October  6,  1902. 

Some  there  are  who  follow  our  Elders,  and  after  they  have  preached  the 
principles  of  salvation,  these  men  get  up  and  charge  that  the  Elders  do  not 
believe  in  God,  but  that  they  believe  in  Adam  as  their  God,  and  they  will 
bring  up  a  few  passages  from  sermons  delivered  by  this  or  that  man  in  the 
Church  to  substantiate  this  charge.  Now,  we  are  not  ashamed  of  the  glorious 
doctrine  of  eternal  orogression,  that  man  may  attain  the  position  of  those  to 
whom  came  the  word  of  God,  that  is  gods.  When  Jesus  was  preaching  unto 
the  Jews  on  one  occasion  they  stoned  Him,  and  He  wanted  to  know  if  they 
stoned  Him  for  the  good  works  He  had  been  doing.  Oh,  no,  they  say,  "for 


Saints  were  sometimes  called  "Mormons"  in  derision,  as  you 
admit,  because  they  believed  in  the  divine  authenticity  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  some  church  members  may  have 
been  willing  to  be  called  "Mormon";  yet  you  "candidly  (?) 
fairly,  dispassionately"  ask  me,  "Why  do  you  not  discard  the 
Book  of  Mormon  from  whence  the  name  is  derived?"  Now, 
sir,  I  profess  to  believe  in  the  divine  authenticity  of  the  Holy 
Bible;  as  well  call  me  a  Bible,  because  I  believe  in  the  Bible,* 
as  call  me  a  Mormon  because  I  believe  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 

The  church  that  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  is  incorpo- 
rated under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  as  "The  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints." 

*If  popular  custom  had  designated  the  true  believers  of  the  Bible  as 
"Bibles"  as  a  term  of  distinction  from  other  worshippers,  there  is  no  reason 
why  a  true  believer  should  be  offended  even  at  that  appellation  but  rather 
honored.  Mr.  Evans,  without  doubt,  is  not  ashamed  of  the  name  "Christian," 
yet  this  term,  like  that  of  "Mormon"  was  first  applied  to  the  followers  of 
Christ  in  derision,  "because  it  was  associated  in  the  public  mind  with  the 
practices"  of  the  early  Saints,  which  practices  in  that  day  were  looked  on  as 

the  good  work  we  stone  thee  not;  but  for  blasphemy;  and  because  that  thou, 
being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God." 

He  quoted  the  33rd  to  37th  verses  of  the  loth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of 
St.    John,    and    said: 

We  believe  that  there  are  gods  as  the  Savior  quoted.  He  repeated  what 
was  written  in  the  law,  and  he  did  not  say  that  it  was  wrong,  but  used  it  as 
an  argument  against  them  (The  Jews.)  While,  however,  we  believe  as  the 
scripture  states,  that  there  are  more  gods,  to  us  there  is  but  one  God.  We 
worship  the  God  that  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  We  worship  the 
same  God  that  came  to  our  first  parents  in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  In  the  rev- 
elation contained  in  section  116  of  the  Book  of  Docrine  and  Covenants  the 
Lord  speaks  concerning  Adam-ondi-Ahman,  "the  place  where  Adam  shall 
come  to  visit  his  people,  or  the  ancient  of  days  shall  sit,  as  spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  Prophet."  In  the  107th  section  the  Lord  speaks  of  Adam  as  Mich- 
ael, the  Prince,  the  Archangel,  and  says  that  he  shall  be  a  prince  over  the  na- 
tions forever.  We  may  with  perfect  propriety  call  him  Prince,  the  Ancient  of 
Days,  or  even  God  in  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  Christ,  which  I  have  just 
quoted.  When  our  missionaries  are  met  with  these  sophistries  and  with  isolated 
extracts  from  sermons  we  say  to  them  anything  that  is  a  tenet  of  our  religion 
must  come  through  revelation  and  be  sustained  by  the  Church,  and  they  need 
not  do  battle  for  anything  outside  of  the  works,  that  have  been  accepted  by  the 
Church  as  a  body. 

talph  E.  Woolley   t.bii.y  /i  ^^^  1  ^^ 



There  is  not  an  honest  thinking  person  on  earth  who  is 
acquainted  with  the  faith  of  the  church  regarding  the  atone- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ  but  that  will  say  your  attempt  to  misrepre- 
sent my  faith  in  this  regard  is  diametrically  opposite  to  your 
stated  desire  to  be  "fair,  dispassionate  and  candid."  You  know 
that  a  prominent  article  in  the  Epitome  of  the  Faith  and  Doc- 
trine of  the  true  church  reads  as  follows:  "We  believe  that  through 
the  atonement  of  Christ,  all  men  may  be  saved  by  obedience  to 
the  laws  and  ordinances  of  the  gospel."  You  know  that  the  true 
church  believes  in  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  as  stated  in  the 
scriptures  you  cite  in  your  letter,  and  yet  you  try  to  make  out  that 
because  we  do  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  blood  atonement  as 
taught  by  Brigham  Young  and  his  successors  in  "Utah  Mormon- 
ism,"  that  we  do  not  believe  in  the  atonement  of  our  Lord  and 
Savior  Jesus  Christ. 

The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  far  above  the 
doctrine  of  blood  atonement  as  taught  by  Brighamism.  To  prove 
this,  I  submit  the  statements  as  made  by  Brigham  Young  and 
other  leading  members  of  the  Utah  Church,  as  found  in  their 
sermons,  printed  by  your  church: 


Brigham  Young  said,  October  9,  1852:  "What  shall  be  done 
with  the  sheep  that  stink  the  flock  so?  We  will  take  them,  I 
was  going  to  say,  and  cut  ofl  their  tails  two  inches  behind  their 
ears;  however  I  will  use  a  milder  term,  and  say  cut  of?  their  ears." 
— Journal  of  Discourses,  vol.  1:213. 

Brigham  said  again,  March  27,  1853:  "I  say,  rather  than 
that  apostates  should  flourish  here,  I  will  unsheath  my  bowie 
knife,  and  conquer  or  die.  (Great  commotion  in  the  congrega- 
tion and  a  simultaneous  burst  of  feeling,  assenting  to  the  declara- 
tion.) Now,  you  nasty  apostates,  clear  out,  or  judgment  will  be 
put  to  the  line  and  righteousness  to  the  plummet,  (Voices  gener- 
ally, 'Go  it,  go  it.')  If  you  say  it  is  all  right,  raise  your  hands 
(all  hands  up).  Let  us  call  upon  the  Lord  to  assist  us  in  this  and 
every  good  work." — Journal  of  Discourses,  vol.  1:83. 

Echoing  what  Brigham  said,  P.  P.  Pratt  said,  on  March 
27,  1853,  "My  feelings  are  with  those  who  have  spoken,  decidedly 


and  firmly  so.  *  *  *  I  need  not  repeat  their  doom,  it  has  been 
told  here  today,  they  have  been  faithfully  warned.  *  *  *  It  is 
too  late  in  the  day  for  us  to  stop  and  inquire  whether  such 
an  outcast  has  the  truth." — Journal  of  Discourses,  vol.  i,  pp. 
84,  86. 

Elder  Orson  Hyde  said  April  9,  1853:  "Suppose  the  shep- 
herd should  discover  a  wolf  approaching  the  flock,  what  would 
he  be  likely  to  do?  Why,  we  would  suppose,  if  the  wolf  was 
within  proper  distance,  that  he  would  kill  him  at  once  *  *  * 
kill  him  on  the  spot.  ♦  *  *  It  would  have  a  tendency  to  place 
a  terror  on  those  who  leave  these  parts,  that  may  prove  their 
salvation  when  they  see  the  heads  of  thieves  taken  o£F,  or  shot 
down  before  the  public." — ^Journal   of  Discourses,  vol.   1:72,  73. 

President  Brigham  Young  preached,  February  8,  1857,  as 
follows  "All  mankind  love  themselves;  and  let  these  principles 
be  known  by  an  individual  and  he  would  be  glad  to  have  his 
blood  shed.  That  would  be  loving  themselves  even  to  an  eternal 
exaltation.  Will  you  love  your  brothers  and  sisters  likewise  when 
they  have  committed  a  sin  that  cannot  be  atoned  for  without 
the  shedding  of  blood?  That  is  what  Jesus  Christ  meant.  He 
never  tdd  a  man  or  woman  to  love  their  enemies  in  their  wick- 
edness. He  never  intended  any  such  thing. 

"I  could  refer  you  to  plenty  of  instances  where  men  have 
been  righteously  slain  in  order  to  atone  for  their  sins.  I  have 
seen  scores  and  hundreds  of  people  for  whom  there  would 
have  been  a  chance  in  the  last  resurrection  if  their  lives  had 
been  taken  and  their  blood  spilled  upon  the  ground,  as  a 
smoking  incense  to  the  Almighty,  but  who  are  now  angels  to 
the  devil,  until  our  elder  brother,  Jesus  Christ,  raises  them 
up,    conquers    death,    hell    and    the    grave.*    I    have    known    a 

•This  is  a  misquotation,  it  should  be:  "I  could  refer  you  to  plenty  of 
instances  where  men  have  been  righteously  slain,  in  order  to  atone  for  their 
sins.  I  have  seen  scores  and  hundreds  of  people  for  whom  there  would  have 
been  a  chance  (in  the  last  resurrection  there  will  be)  if  their  lives  had  been 
taken  and  their  blood  spilled  on  the  ground  as  a  smoking  incense  to  the  Al- 
mighty, but  who  are  now  angels  to  the  devil,  until  our  elder  brother  Jesus 
Christ  raises   them  up — conquers  death,   hell   and   the  grave." 

In  that  same  discourse  President  Young  declares   that  those   who   were 


great  many  men  who  have  left  this  church,  for  whom  there  is  no 
chance  whatever  for  exaltation;  but  if  their  blood  had  been 
spilt  it  would  have  been  better  for  them.  The  wickedness  and 
ignorance  of  the  nations  forbid  this  principle  being  in  full  force, 
but  the  time  will  come  when  the  law  of  God  will  be  in  full 

"This  is  loving  our  neighbor  as  ourselves;  if  he  needs  help, 
help  him;  and  if  he  wants  salvation  and  it  is  necessary  to  spill 
his  blood  upon  the  ground  in  order  that  he  may  be  saved,  spill 
it." — ^Journal  of  Discourses,  vol.  4,  p.  220,  or  Deseret  News,  vol.  6, 

P-  397- 

President  J.  M.  Grant  said,  September  21,  1856:  "I  say 
there  are  men  and  women  here  that  I  would  advise  to  go  to 
the  president  immediately,  and  ask  him  to  appoint  a  commit- 
tee to  attend  to  their  case,  and  then  let  a  place  be  selected,  and 
let  that  committee  shed  their  blood." — Deseret  News,  vol.  6, 
p.  235. 

President  Heber  C.  Kimball  said,  July  19,  1854:  "It  is  be- 
lieved in  the  world  that  our  females  are  all  common  women. 
Well,  in  one  sense  they  are  common — that  is,  they  are  like  all 
other  women,  I  suppose,  but  they  are  not  unclean,  for  we  wipe 
all  unclean  ones  out  of  our  midst;  we  not  only  wipe  them  from 
our  streets,  but  we  wipe  them  out  of  existence.  And  if  the 
world  wants  to  practice  uncleanness,  and  bring  their  prosti- 
tutes here,  if  they  do  not  repent  and  forsake  their  sins,  we  will 
wipe  the  evil  out.  We .  will  not  have  them  in  this  valley  unless 
they  repent,  for  so  help  me  God,  while  I  live  I  will  lend  my 

"righteously  slain"  were  the  wicked  that  the  "Lord  had  to  slay"  in  ancient 
Israel.  There  is  not  one  word  in  that  discourse  to  indicate  that  those  who 
were  slain  to  "atone  for  their  sins"  were  killed  in  Utah;  but  to  the  contrary 
they  were  ancient  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  viz.,  the  antediluvians  who  per- 
ished in  the  flood,  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  of  Jericho  and 
the  cities  destroyed  by  the  Israelites;  the  prophets  of  Baal  whom  Elijah  slew 
(I  Kings  18:40)  and  a  host  of  others  of  that  class  and  the  class  to  whom 
the  one  belonged  of  whom  the  Savior  said:  "It  were  better  for  him  that  a 
millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the  depth 
of  the  sea."  President  Young's  remarks  agree  with  those  of  Peter  when  he 
declared  that  the  Jews  who  were  guilty  of  assenting  to  the  crucifixion  of 
Christ  could  not  be  baptized  nor  have  their  "sins  blotted  out"  until  the 
"times  of  refreshing  shall  come,"  which  was  at  the  time  of  the  "restitution 
of  all  things." — Acts  3:19-21. 


hand  to  wipe  such  persons  out,  and  I  know  this  people  will." — 
Deseret  News,  August  i6,  1854,  and  Millennial  Star,  vol.  16, 
pages  738-9. 

The  above  statements  speak  for  themselves,  and  these  were 
what  I  read  to  the  reporter.  You  ask,  "Do  you  \non^  of  any- 
one whose  blood  was  ever  shed  by  the  command  of  the  church 
or  members  thereof  to  save  his  soul?"  To  \now  by  hearing  such 
a  command  given,  or  seeing  a  murder  committed,  is  one  thing, 
to  believe  the  evidence  of  many  who  have  testified  is  another. 
No  sir,  I  was  never  present  when  such  a  command  was  given, 
nor  when  murder  was  committed;  but  I  have  read  that  which 
leads  me  to  believe  that  under  Brighamism,  Utah  was  for  years 
a  land  of  assassination  and  a  field  of  blood.  What  of  the  Moun- 
tain Meadow  massacre — the  destruction  of  the  Aiken  party;  the 
dying  confession  of  Bishop  J.  D.  Lee;  the  Hickman  butcheries; 
the  Danites?  Alfred  Henry  Lewis,  writing  in  Collier's  Wee\ly 
for  March  26,  1904,  states:  "Brigham  Young  invented  his  de- 
stroying angels,  placed  himself  at  their  head,  and  when  a  man 
rebelled,  he  had  him  murdered,  if  one  fled  the  fold  he  was  pur- 
sued and  slain." 

The  world  has  recendy  read  the  testimony  of  persons  under 
oath,  in  Washington,  who  testified  concerning  the  endowment 
oaths,  so  I  will  forbear  any  further  remarks  on  this  subject. 


Speaking  of  "plural  marriage,"  you  say,  "I  shall  not  dis- 
cuss its  virtues."  Surely  that  is  kind.  Let  civilization  give  ear, 
.Mr.  Smith  calls  that  a  virtue  which  wrecks  the  happiness  of 
every  woman  who  is  enslaved  by  it,  that  doctrine  which  permits 
Brighamites  to  live  in  what  they  call  marriage  with  three  sisters 
at  one  time,  with  mother  and  daughter  at  the  same  time.  Your 
father,  Joseph  F.  Smith,  married  and  is  now  living  with  two 
sisters  as  wives.  I  refer  to  Julina  Lambson-  and  Edna  Lambson, 
both  bearing  children  to  him;  yet  you  call  that  system  a  virtue. 

I  have  no  evidence  that  those  men  you  refer  to,  as  having 
practiced  polygamy  before  Young  was  guilty,  1  as  stated  by  you. 
But  the  following  evidence  shows  clearly  that  Brigham  Young 
was  under  suspicion  before  Joseph's  death,  and  that  he  has 
since  admitted  that  he  had  a  revelation  on  polygamy  before  the 
church  knew  anything  of  the  doctrine: 


In  a  speech  of  Brigham  Young  on  June  21,  1874,  (see  Des- 
eret  News  of  July  i,  1874),  we  read  the  following  statement 
relative  to  the  origin  of  this  doctrine  of  polygamy: 

While  we  were  in  England  (in  1839  and  1840,  I  think)  the  Lord  mani- 
fested to  me  by  vision  and  His  Spirit,  things  that  I  did  not  then  understand. 
I  never  opened  my  mouth  to  anyone  concerning  them,  until  I  returned  to 
Nauvoo;  Joseph  had  never  mentioned  this;  there  had  never  been  a  thought 
of  it  in  the  church  that  I  ever  knew  anything  about  at  that  time; — but  I  had 
this  for  myself  and  k>pt  it  for  myself. — The  Messenger,  volume   i,  page  29. 

Well,  no  one  need  blame  Joseph  any  more,  Brigham  is  the 
self-confessed  channel  through  which  polygamy  was  given  to 
his  people. 

I  here  submit  the  testimony  of  Brigham  Young's  legal  wife, 
who  left  him  after  he  was  untrue  to  her.  Testimony  of  Major 
Thomas  Wanless,  given  to,  R.  C.  Evans,  his  nephew,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Mrs.  Wanless,  Mrs.  Evans  and  her  daughter,  in  St. 
Louis,  Missouri,  September  7,  1904: 

I  met  Brigham  Young's  First  and  legal  wife  and  her  daughter  in  the 
winter  of  i860  and  1861,  at  Central  City,  Colorado;  she  told  me  that  Joseph 
Smith  had  nothing  to  do  with  polygamy;  that  he  did  not  teach,  practice,  or 
in  any  way  endorse  the  doctrine  of  polygamy,  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  so-called  revelation  on  celestial  marriage;  that  he  had  but  one  wife.  My 
husband,  Brigham  Young,  Orson  Pratt  (she  gave  the  name  of  another  man 
whose  name  I  have  forgotten)  made  up  the  revelation  on  celestial  marriage. 

Before  they  left  Illinois  some  of  them  practiced  polygamy.  Brigham 
YouHg  went  to  Utah  to  reorganize  the  church  and  publicly  introduced  polyg- 
amy, or  to  reorganize  the  Church  on  a  polygamous  basis. 

She  left  Brigham  Young,  finally  obtained  a  divorce  from  him,  and  was 
then  living  with  her  daughter.  Brigham  sent  the  daughter  money  according 
to  an  agreement.  She  told  me  they  ought  to  have  shot  Brigham  Young  in 
place  of  Joseph  Smith. 

This  statement  of  Major  Wanless  that  she  was  Brigham's 
first  wife  is  a  mistake.  Brigham  married  Miriam  Works,  Oc- 
tober 8,  1824;  she  died  September  8,  1832.  In  February,  1834, 
he  married  May  Ann  Angel;  she  was  his  legal  tvife,  and  perhaps 
is  the  one  referred  to  by  the  Major.  It  is  quite  pardonable  in 
Major  Wanless  in  getting  Brigham's  wives  mixed  up.  We  opine 
poor  Brigham  was  at  his  wit's  end  to  keep  the  family  record 
correct  himself. 

Chambers'  encyclopedia,  volume  8,  students'  edition,  con- 
firms Mrs.  Young's  statement,  in  part.  It  says,  speaking  of 
the  practice  of  polygamy:  "Young,  Pratt  and  Hyde  are  its  true 


originators.  Emma,  wife  and  widow  of  tKe  prophet,  stoudy 
denied  that  her  husband  had  any  wife  but  herself.  Young's 
revelation  she  declared  to  be  a  fraud." 

From  a  host  of  other  witnesses  who  testify  that  Brigham 
Young  was  the  man  that  introduced  polygamy  in  the  Church, 
I  submit  the  statement  of  another  broken-hearted  woman  from 
the  ranks  of  Brigham's  Church.  Fanny  Stenhouse  says:  Polygamy 
was  unheard  of  among  the  (English)  Saints  in  1849."  (pages  45, 
47,  48)  "Tell  It  All,"  by  Fanny  Stenhouse.  In  June  1850,  I 
heard  the  first  whisper  of  polygamy.  In  January,  1853,  I  first  saw 
the  revelation  on  Polygamy;  it  was  published  in  the  Millennial 
Star,"  (page  132). 

"Out  of  thirty  thousand  Saints  in  England  in  1853,  1776 
had  been  excommunicated  for  apostasy  through  polygamy,  the 
president  of  the  conference  was  cut  off,"  (page  160).  When 
speaking  regarding  polygamy  she  says:  "They  know  that  the 
only  source  of  all  their  revelations  is  the  man  BRIGHAM 
YOUNG,"  (page  190). 

"Brigham  has  outraged  decency  and  driven  asunder  the  most 
sacred   ties,  by   his   shameless   introduction   of   polygamy,"    (page 

"There  have  been  many  apostates  from  the  teachings  of  Jo- 
seph Smith  in  early  days,  but  of  all  apostates,  Bro.  Brigham  is 
the  chief,"  (page  614). 

It  is  reported  by  Fanny  Stenhouse,  and  many  others,  that 
Joseph  Smith  said,  "If  ever  the  Church  had  the  misfortune  to  be 
led  by  Bro.  Brigham,  he  would  lead  it  to  hell,"  (page  268). 

Why  did  Joseph  Smith  a  short  time  prior  to  his  death  make 
the  above  and  similar  statements  regarding  the  man  Brigham 
Young?  The  reason  is  plain.  He  too  had  doubtless  heard  some 
rumors  as  to  his  conduct  and  secret  teachings,  and  the  evidence 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  just  before  his  death  he  made  a  move 
to  bring  the  guilty  to  judgment.  We  will  let  William  Marks, 
who  was  president  of  the  Nauvoo  Stake  at  the  time  of  Joseph 
Smith's  death  testify: 

"A  few  days  after  this  occurrence,  I  met  with  Bro.  Joseph, 
he  said  that  he  wanted  to  converse  with  me  on  the  affairs  of 
the  Church,  and  we  retired  by  ourselves;  I  will  give  his  words 
verbatim    for    they    are    indelibly    stamped    upon    my    mind.    He 


said  he  had  desired  for  a  long  time  to  have  a  talk  with  me  on 
the  subject  of  polygamy.  He  said  it  would  eventually  prove  the 
overthrow  of  the  Church,  and  we  should  soon  be  obliged  to 
leave  the  United  States,  unless  it  could  be  speedily  put  down. 
He  was  satisfied  that  it  was  a  cursed  doctrine,  and  that  there 
must  be  every  exertion  to  put  it  down.  He  said  that  he 
would  go  before  the  congregation  and  proclaim  against  it, 
and  I  must  go  into  the  High  Council,  and  he  would  prefer 
charges  against  those  in  transgression,  and  I  must  sever  them 
from  the  Church  unless  they  made  ample  satisfaction.  There 
was  much  more  said,  but  this  was  the  substance.  The  mob 
commenced  to  gather  about  Carthage  in  a  few  days  after,  there- 
fore there  was  nothing  done  concerning  it."  {Saints'  Herald, 
vol.  I,  pp.  22,  23.) 

President  Marks,  after  Joseph  Smith's  death,  made  men- 
tion of  the  above  conversation;  it  was  soon  rumored  that  he  was 
about  to  apostatize,  and  that  his  statement  was  a  tissue  of  lies." 
(See  Saints'  Herald^  vol.  i,  pp.  22,  23.) 

Speaking  of  the  revelation  on  polygamy,  Marks  said,  "I 
never  heard  of  it  during  Joseph's  life.  It  was  evidently  gotten 
up  by  Brigham  Young  and  some  of  the  Twelve,  after  Joseph's 
death."   (Briggs'  Autobiography;  Herald  1901.) 

Now  I  propose  to  produce  evidence  showing  that  Joseph 
Smith  and  the  Church  during  his  lifetime  condemned  polygamy 
in  the  strongest  terms.  First,  I  submit  the  testimony  of  thirty- 
one  witnesses  as  published  by  the  Church  on  October  the  ist, 
1842.  We  deem  this  sufficient  to  show  you  where  Joseph  and 
Hyrum  Smith  stood  oa  this  question  of  polygamy. 

"We,  the  undersigned  members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Latter-day  Saints,  and  residents  of  the  city  of  Nauvoo,  persons 
of  families,  do  hereby  certify  and  declare,  that  we  know  of  no 
other  rule  or  system  of  marriage  than  the  one  published  from 
the  Book  of  Covenants,  and  we  give  this  certificate  to  show  that 
Dr.  John  C.  Bennett's  secret  wife  system  is  a  creature  of  his  own 
make,  as  we  know  of  no  such  society  in  this  place,  nor  never 

This  is  signed  by  a  number  of  the  leading  men  of  the 
Church,  some  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  some  of  the  First  Presi- 
dency of  the  Utah  Church,  and  a  number  of  the  leading  men  of 
the  Church.  A  similar  document  is  signed  by  Emma  Smith  the 


wife  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  a  number  of  the  leading  women  of 
the  Church,  thirty-one  witnesses  in  all. 

Now  I  submit  for  your  consideration  a  statement  made 
by  Joseph  Smith  and  his  Brother  Hyrum  just  a  few  months 
prior  to  their  assassination.  They  learned  that  a  man  up  here 
in  the  state  of  Michigan  was  teaching  polygamy,  and  this  is 
what  they  said  about  it:  "As  we  have  lately  been  credibly  in- 
formed that  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter- 
day  Saints,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Hyrum  Brown,  has  been 
teaching  polygamy  and  other  false  and  corrupt  doctrines,  in  the 
county  of  Lapeer,  state  of  Michigan,  this  is  to  notify  him  and 
the  Church  in  general  that  he  has  been  cut  off  from  the  Church 
for  his  iniquity."  Signed,  Joseph  Smith,  Hyrum  Smith,  Presi- 
dents of  the  Church. 

This  was  given  in  February,  1844.  Joseph  was  killed  four 
months  after  that.  Here  he  declares  that  polygamy  is  a  crime, 
and  the  man  was  excommunicated  from  the  Church  for  preach- 
ing it.  Now  I  want  to  give  you  the  testimony  of  George  Q. 
Cannon,  whom  I  met  in  Salt  Lake  City,  as  one  of  the  presidency 
of  the  Salt  Lake  Mormon  Church:  "A  prevalent  idea  has  been 
that  this  prejudice  against  us  owes  its  origin  and  *  continuation 
to  our  belief  in  a  plurality  of  wives.  *  *  *  Joseph  and  Hyrum 
Smith  were  slain  in  the  Carthage  Jail,  and  hundreds  of  persons 
were  persecuted  to  death  previous  to  the  Church  having  any 
knowledge  of  this  doctrine."* — Journal  of  Discourses,  vol.  14, 
pages  165,  166. 

*In  extreme  haste  here  to  make  a  point,  Mr.  Evans  left  in  the  middle 
of  a  sentence  and  hurried  on  to  the  next  page  to  complete  the  expression  he 
desired  to  convey.  This  is  what  President  Cannon  said:  "A  prevalent  idea 
has  been  that  this  prejudice  against  us  owes  its  origin  and  continuation  to 
our  belief  in  a  plurality  of  wives;  but  when  it  is  recollected  that  the  mobbings, 
drivings,  and  expulsions  from  cities,  counties  and  states  which  we  have  en- 
dured, and  our  exodus  to  these  mountains  all  took  place  before  the  revelation 
of  that  doctrine  was  PUBLICLY  known,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  our  belief 
in  it  has  not  been  the  cause  of  persecution."  Now,  I  ask,  is  it  not  plain  to 
see  why  his  quotation  stopped  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence?  The  Saints  all 
know  that  President  George  Q.  Cannon  was  always  faithful  to  his  testimony 
that  plural  marriage  was  introduced  by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith.  Latter-day 
Saints  generally  declare  that  this  doctrine  was  not  publicly  known  in  the  days 
of  Joseph  the  Seer,  but  that  it  was  taught  by  him  to  his  trusted  friends.  When 
this  fact  is  known  the  alleged  quotations  which  follow,  purported  to  be  from 
H.  B.  Clawson,  EpLraim  Jensen  and  "Elder  Whitaker"  lose  their  force. 


This  hcing  true,  Joseph  Sinilh  was  not  guiky  oi  the  practice 
of  polygamy;  he  was  killeu  beiore  the  people  knew  anything 
about  polygamy.  This  is  the  statement  of  George  Q.  Cannon, 
L,trL  me  strengthen  this  now  by  the  son-in-law  of  Brigham  Young, 
H.  B.  Clavvson: 

"Polygamy  at  that  time  (^that  is  at  the  time  of  Joseph 
Smith's  death)  was  not  known  among  those  of  the  Mormon 
faith.  *  *  *  The  doctrine  of  polygamy  was  not  promulgated 
until  they  got  to  Salt  Lake;  not,  in  fact,  until  some  little  time 
after  they  had  arrived  there."  Salt  Lake  Herald,  February  9, 

Joseph  Smith  was  killed  in  1844.  They  arrived  in  Salt  Lake 
the  24th  of  July,  1847,  and  he  says  not  until  some  little  time 
after  that  was  it  introduced.  The  little  time  was  the  29th  of 
August,  1852,  eight  years  and  two  months  after  the  assassination 
oi  Joseph  Smith. 

We  have  Brigham  Young  himself  on  this.  He  being  inter- 
viewed by  Senator  Trumbull  in  1869,  said:  "It  (polygamy) 
was  adopted  by  us  as  a  necessity  alter  we  came  here."  Ah,  there 
never  was  a  greater  truth  told  in  all  the  world  than  that. 
Polygamy  was  not  an  original  tenet  of  the  Church,  and  Brigham 
Young  says  it  was  adopted  as  a  necessity  alter  "we  came  here." 
The  real  facts  are,  Brigham  Young,  as  I  will  show  from  their 
own  evidence,  and  a  few  other  Elders  were  living  vile  lives 
secretly,  and  to  cover  up  the  consequences  of  their  bad  conduct, 
as  he  truthfully  says  in  this  "as  a  necessity";  yea,  as  a  necessity 
polygamy  was  introduced.  But  who  will  dare  to  blame  Joseph 
Smith  for  their  introducing  polygamy  eight  years  after  his  death.'' 

I  have  been  careful  to  take  these  clippings  right  from  their 
own  papers,  so  that  they  cannot  say  that  we  have  changed  the 
words  or  anything  of  that  kind.  Here  is  another  statement;  this 
is  found  from  Elder  Ephraim  Jenson: 

"Polygamy  was  not  practiced  by  the  Mormons  prior  to 
and  at  the  time  ol  the  execution  of  Joseph  Smith,  who  was 
executed  at  Nauvoo,  IlUnois.  *  *  *  Fourth,  that  only  three  per 
cent  of  the  Monr'Oii  men  practiced  polygamy,  a  proof  itself  that 
it  was  not  essential  to  the  creed." — The  Yeoman's  Shield. 

■This    is    not    in    the    Salt    Lake    Herald   oi   February    9,    18S2. 


Here  is  another  one: 

"Go  back  to  the  foundation  of  our  Church,  April  6,  1830, 
there  was  no  polygamy  practiced  or  taught  in  Mormon  literature 
until  five  years  after  that  band  of  persecuted  Saints  reached  Utah." 
New  Yor}^  Herald,  January  8,  1900.* 

This  is  by  Elder  Whitaker,  who  knew  who  did  introduce 
this  polygamy.  Now  I  might  introduce  dozens  and  dozens  of 
witnesses  to  prove  that  Joseph  Smith  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
Well,  who  did  it?  Here  is  what  the  Apostle's  wife  says  of  it: 
"How  then,  asked  the  reader,  did  polygamy  originate?  It  was 
born    in    the    vile    and    lustful    brain    of    Brigham    Young,    and 

*The  following  is  the  Brooklyn  Citizen's  report  of  that  same  disc:  urse 
from  which  Mr.  Evans  quotes  his  passage  as  given  in  the  New  York  Herald: 
Elder  Whitaker  said:  "The  people  of  the  East  have  been  led  to  believe  thai 
polygam}'  was  alone  responsible  for  all  the  troubles  of  the  Mormons,  but  the 
fact  remains,  that  as  the  hght  was  waged  against  Jesus  Christ,  against  his 
followers,  and  against  all  great  men  for  declaring  the  truth,  so  the  same 
spirit  is  manifest  now;  but  the  Mormons  will  humbly  seek  those  willing  to 
accept  the  truths  inspired  of  God,  leaving  the  justice  of  their  cause  to  be 
vindicated  by  honest  .n\cstigation  ami  time.  The  fight  is  directed  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  Mormon  Church,  though  polygamy  has  done  such  yeoman 
service  in  arousing  public  sentiment,  to  attain  certain  ends  unworthy  of  hon- 
est men.  The  crusaders  have  kept  the  public  mind  from  the  real  cause  of 
the  attack.  From  the  time  the  Church  was  organized  in  1830-47,  when  the 
people,  after  many  previous  drivings,  persecutions,  mobbings  and  cruel  mock- 
ings,  were  driven  to  Utah,  the  cry  of  polygamy  was  never  made  a  cause  of 
their  persecutions;  indeed,  that  subject  was  not  committed  in  writing  until 
1843,  never  published  to  the  world  until  1852,  and  was  abandoned  by  the 
issuance  of  the  'Manifesto'  of  President  Wilford  WoodrufT,  in  1890,  since 
which  time  not  one  polygamous  marriage  has  been  solemnized;  but  those 
having  wives  at  that  time  were  never  asked,  and  it  was  never  expected  they 
would  abandon  them,  and  when  death  brings  such  relations  to  a  close,  there 
will  be  no  polygam\-  among  the  Mormons."  The  Brooklyn  Citizen,  Monday, 
January  8,   1900. 

Why  Mr.  Evans  accejited  the  brief  extract  from  the  New  York  HerjJd  in 
preference  to  the  full  account  in  the  Brooklyn  Citizen  will  require  no  com- 
ment, but  it  certain!}-  do;s  ajipear  that  Elder  \\'!iitakcr  did  Icnow  who  intro- 
duced  "polygamy." 

.\s  I  do  not  have  the  Yeoman's  Shield  and  am  not  in  comniimication 
with  Elder  Ephraim  Jenson.  I  cannot  vouch  for  his  remarks,  but  feel  safe  in 
sa\ing  that  if  the  whole  report  were  published,  his  testimony  would  agree 
with    that   of   Elder   Whitaker    as    published    in    the    Brooklyn    Citizen. 


was  grafted  on  the  faith  to  gratify  his  sensual  bestiality."*  (Mys- 
teries of  Mormonism,  pp.  i6,  17.) 

One  of  the  Mormon  wives  said  that,  and  she  ought  to  know 
whereof  she  affirms. 

We  have  learned  from  the  above  statements  that  polygamy 
was  not  taught  or  practiced  by  Joseph  Smith,  but  was  intro- 
duced into  an  apostate  branch  of  the  church,  after  his  death, 
as  is  admitted  by  Brigham  Young  and  others  of  his  followers. 

Having  read  the  works  of  the  church  for  over  a  quarter 
of  a  century.  I  confidently  affirm  that  there  is  not  a  single 
word,  in  a  single  sermon,  lecture,  statement,  newspaper  or  church 
publication  printed  during  the  lifetime  of  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith  wherever  he,  by  word,  has  endorsed  the  doctrine  of 
plurality  of  wives;  not  a  single  statement;  and  there  is  no  Salt 
Lake  Mormon  breathing  who  can  produce  one  and  prove  its 

But  suppose  you  could  prove  that  Joseph  Smith  secretly 
taught  .and  practiced  polygamy,  that  would  not  make  it  a 
Christian  doctrine.  If  Joseph  Smith  secredy  taught,  practiced,  or 
endorsed  the  doctrine  of  polygamy,  he  did  it  contrary  to  all  the 

*In  quoting  from  "The  Mysteries  of  Mormonism,  by  an  Apostle's  Wife," 
Mr.  Evans  reveals  the  character  of  his  "dozens  and  dozens  of  witnesses." 
The  reader  will  perceive  that  he  depends  largely  on  the  most  bitter  anti- 
"Mormons"  and  apostates  for  his  "evidence,"  but  in  quoting  from  "The 
Mysteries  of  Mormonism,  by  an  Apostle's  Wife,"  he  certainly  reaches  the 
climax  of  this  base  testimony.  This  work  was  published  in  1882,  by  Richard 
K.  Fox,  proprietor  of  the  notorious  Police  Gazette.  The  author  of  thtse 
"Mysteries,"  undoubtedly  a  man,  assumes  the  title  of  "An  Aposde's  Wife," 
in  order  ta  hide  his  perfidy.  The  work  is  one  of  the  vilest  and  most  con- 
temptible of  all  anti-"Mormon"  publications,  and  is  most  bitter  in  its  denun- 
ciation of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith.  In  it  he  is  called  a  "lusty  toper,"  "the 
worst  of  a  bad  breed,"  "an  ignorant,  brutal  loafer,"  "immoral,  false  and 
fraudulent,"  and  the  author  says,  "this  is  the  man  who  founded  what  he 
dared  to  call  a  faith,  and  grafted  on  the  United  States  the  religion  of  licen- 
tiousness and  bodily  lust  known  as  Mormonism."  An  apology  is  perhaps 
due  for  even  referring  to  this  matter,  but  since  Mr.  Evans  makes  this  work 
one  of  the  chief  of  his  "dozens  and  dozens  of  witnesses,"  I  feel  that  he 
should  be  exposed.  He  professes  to  believe  in  the  divine  mission  of  Joseph 
Smith,  and  yet  calls  upon  us  to  accept  the  wicked  falsehoods  of  this  dis- 
reputable witness,  whom  he  declares  "ought  to  kjiow  whereof  she  affirms." 
Shame  upon  the  man  who  draws  his  inspiration  from  such  a  ^source! 


revelations  given  for  the  government  of  the  church  in  the  Bible, 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  Doctrine  and  Covenants;  contrary  to  all 
his  sermons,  speeches,  and  public  teachings;  and  he  v^^as  a  crimi- 
nal before  the  law  of  his  country,  a  base  hypocrite  before  the 
God  whom  he  openly  worshiped,  a  despicable  traitor  to  the 
woman  whom  he  claimed  to  love  and  cherish  a^  his  wife,  and 
was  untrue  to  all  the  sacred  principles  of  fidelity  and  integrity 
which  he  evinced  in  all  his  public  utterances  and  conduct. 

In  the  face  of  all  this,  the  wife  and  children  of  Joseph  Smith, 
together  with  thousands  of  people  who  knew  him  in  life,  refuse 
to  believe  the   contradictory   statements   of   Brigham   Young   and 
others  who  are  wallowing  in  the  mire  of  polygapiy. 

If  your  father  denies  that  he  and  I  discussed  the  doctrine 
of  polygamy,  all  I  have  to  say  about  it  is,  that  what  he  states  is 
untrue.  Here  are  a  few  points  that  may  help  him  to  remember 
what  was  said  and  done:  When  talking  with  Joseph  F.  Smith 
in  Salt  Lake  City  two  years  ago,  he  brought  up  a  number  of  wit- 
nesses and  I  examined  them — that  is,  he  repeated  the  testimony 
of  some  who  had  testified.  He  finally  said,  "I  can  produce  a 
living  woman  who  will  testify  that  Joseph  Smith  was  a  polyg- 
amist,  and  she  knew  it."  I  said,  "Bring  her  along  here  and  let 
us  examine  her."  Well,  I  met  "Aunt  Lucy"  Walker  Kimball, 
to  whom  you  refer,  and  we  talked  the  matter  over,  and  here 
is  the  one  point  to  which  I  want  to  draw  your  attention,  to  show 
how  these  poor  dupes  of  Brigham  Young  may  be  led.  Coming 
to  the  testimony  of  Emma  Smith,  I  said,  "You  were  personally 
acquainted  with  Emma  Smith'"  "Yes."  "What  have  you  to  say 
as  to  her  integrity,  as  to  her  fidelity  and  honor.?"  The  old 
woman  looked  me  fair  in  the  face  and  said,  "Emma  Smith  was 
one  of  God's  noble  women — she  was  truth  personified;  and 
anything  that  Emma  Smith  may  say  you  can  bank  on  it  until 
the  day  of  your  death."  "Well,"  I  said,  "she  testifies  that  her 
husband  never  had  any  wife  but  her;  ^  she  testifies  that  she  never 
heard  of  that  revelation  on  polygamy  until  you  folks  had  gone 
to  Salt  Lake;  she  testifies  she  never  saw  it,  and  she  testifies  that 
it  is  an  unmitigated  falsehood  manufactured  by  Brigham  Young; 
that  he  stated  that  she  had  the  revelation  and  burned  it.  Now 
what  have  you  to  say  to  that?"  I  said.  She  looked  me  fair  in  the 


face  and  said,  "You  can  aflord  to  build  on  anything  that  Emma 
Smith  has  to  say."  "Thank  you,"  said  I. 

it  is  true  that  she  told  me  she  was  married  to  Joseph  Smith 
May  I,  1843;  but  when  I  showed  her  that  the  so-called  revela- 
tion permitting  a  plurality  of  wives  was  dated  July  12,  1843, 
and  referred  to  her  former  testimony  as  given  in  the  Historical 
Record,  and  that  given  nnder  oath  in  the  Temple  Lot  suit,  she 
was  confounded.  I  felt  sorry  for  the  old  lady  as  she  sat  silent  and 

It  is  true  that  I  saw  a  very  old  lady  in  your  father's  parlor, 
as  she  came  slowly  in  for  prayers.  Your  father  said,  "This  is 
Catherine  Phillips  Smith.  She  was  married  to  my  father,  Hyrum 
Smith,  and  she  has  never  married  since.  I  am  not  sure  that  the 
old  lady  heard  a  word.  It  is  certain  that  she  did  not  testify  to  me, 
but  it  was  your  father  who  made  the  statement,  and  at  once 
called  us  to  prayer,  thus  preventing  me  from  speaking  to  the  old 

Lorenzo  Snow  did  testify  to  me,  as  stated;  but  then  and 
there,  in  the  presence  of  Joseph  F.  Smith  and  George  Q.  Cannon, 
I  showed  his  testimony  to  be  false,  by  his  own  evidence,  when 
given  under  oath,  and  by  his  sister's  statement  signed  in  1842. 
At  this.  Snow,  Cannon  and  Smith  were  all  much  annoyed.  So 
much  for  your  father's  statement,  which  says  "you  did  not  say  one 
word  to  him  in  relation  to  polygamy." 


You  seem  to  feel  sore  over  the  statement  that  your  father's 
"first  wife  died  broken  hearted  and  insane";  and  you  add,  "If 
you  mean  to  insinuate  that  this  condition,  if  true,  was  the  result 
of  any  act  whateyer  on  the  part  of  my  father,  it  is  also  slander- 
ously false."  I  insinuate  nothing;  let  the  public  judge  the  facts. 
Your  father's  first  wife  was  his  cousin;  she  refused  to  consent  to 
additional  wives,  and  when  he  persisted  in  marrying  the  Lamb- 
son  sisters,  she  obtained  a  divorce  in  California.  Julina  and  Edna 
Lambson  were  sisters  and  were  married  to  Joseph  F.  Smith  on 
the  same  day.* 

*This  whole  statement  is  absolutely  false,  and  there  was  not  the  least 
shadow  of  reason  for  uttering  it.  President  Smith's  first  wife  did  not  refuse 
to  consent  to   additional    wives.   He   did   not  marry   two  sisters   on   the   same 


Number   of    wives    married    to    Joseph    F.    Smith    since 

1865   6 

Number  of  children  born  to  him  in  38  years 42 

Number    of    children    born    since    plural    marriage    was 

prohibited    in    1890    13 

Children  of  Julina  Lambson   Smith  2 

Children  of   Sarah   Richards   Smith  2 

Children  of  Edna  Lambson   Smith   2 

Children  of  Alice  Kimball  Smith  3 

Children  of  Mary   Schwartz   Smith   4 

Estimated    income    available    for    supporting    five    estab- 
lishments     $75,000 

Corporations,    banks    and   factories    of   which    Joseph    F. 

Smith   is   a   director   20 

Only  Mormon  Apostle  who  surpasses  the  record  of  President 
Smith  is  M.  W.  Merrill,  with  8  wives,  45  children,  and  156 
grandchildren. — Collier's   for    March    26,    1894     [1904]. 

While  in  Utah  I  was  informed  that  your  father's  first  wife 
died  broken  hearted  and  insane.  God  and  civilization  know  that 
a  woman  who  loved  her  husband  from  youth  up  has  enough  to 
break  her  heart  and  send  her  insane  when  her  husband  will 
marry  two  other  women,  lx)th  sisters,  in  one  day. 

Perhaps  you  will  be  assisted  to  view  the  matter  as  I  do, 
should  you  read  the  following  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  Jacob 
2:6,  7.  Here  it  is  stated,  in  consequence  of  polygamy,  "ye  have 
broken  the  hearts  of  your  tender  wives."  Does  this  make  the 
prophet  an  asperser  or  a  scandalmonger' 

I  have  answered  your  letter  as  it  appeared  in  the  Toronto 
Star  as  fully  as  space  would  permit. 

Toronto,  Ontario,  March  i,  1905.*  R.  C.  Evans. 

*This  letter  is  dated  March  i,  1905,  but  was  not  written  until  some- 
time after  April  19,  1905,  for  on  the  latter  date  Mr.  Evans  wrote:  "You  may 
look  for  reply  to  your  letter  as  it  appeared  in  the  Toronto  Star,  as  soon  as  I 
have  time  to  reply  thereto.  This  reply  was  received  May  5,   1905. 

day.  In  depending  on  the  unreliable  Alfred  Henry  Lewis  for  his  argument, 
Mr.  Evans  shows  the  desperate  weakness  of  his  position.  It  would  be  a  hard 
matter  to  squeeze  more  falsehoods  in  the  space  occupied  by  the  article  of 
A.  H.  Lewis,  from  which  Mr.  Evans  quotes  so  faithfully. 


A   REJOINDER   TO   MR.   R.    C.    EVANS'   LETTER 

Salt  Lake  City,  May  23,  1905. 

Mr.  R.  C.  Evans, 

Counselor  in  Presidency  of  Reorganized  Church. 

Sir: — Your  reply  to  my  open  letter  of  February  17  was  re- 
ceived May  5.  Whether  I  was  "fair,  dispassionate  and  also  candid" 
in  my  letter,  or,  as  you  seem  to  think,  "guilty  of  a  labored  eflort 
to  cover  up  the  true  facts  regarding  'blood  atonement,  polygamy, 
etc'  "  and  "your  faith" — which  was  not  discussed — I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  leave  to  the  judgment  of  "those  who  read"  the 
same  in  the  Toronto  Star.  So  on  this  point  we  may  both  rest 


I  will  now  consider  your  "labored  effort  to  cover  up  the 
true  facts  regarding  blood  atonement." 

In  my  letter  I  candidly  placed  the  true  belief  and  teach- 
ings of  the  Latter-day  Saints  in  relation  to  this  doctrine  before 
you.  This  fact  appears  to  be  displeasing  to  you,  as  it  overturns 
your  conclusions  and  accusations  against  our  people.  If  you  desire 
to  know  the  correct  position  of  the  Church  on  this  doctrine,  I 
would  recommend  a  careful  study  of  John  Taylor's  Meditation 
and  Atonement  and  Charles  W.  Penrose's  Blood  Atonement, 
which  was  published  in  answer  to  such  wicked  misrepresentations 
as  I  claim  you  have  made  in  relation  to  this  principle  and  our 
belief  in  relation  thereto.  There  is  no  reason  for  any  person  to 
misunderstand  our  position,  unless  he  desires  to  do  so.  I  claim, 
too,  that  we  are  in  a  better  position  to  teach  that  which  we  be- 
lieve than  is  the  stranger  who  attempts  to  present  our  case,  espe- 
cially if  he  is  antagonistic  or  unfriendly. 

If  you  do  not  believe  the  doctrine  of  blood  atonement  as 
that  doctrine  is  taught  by  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter- 
day  Saints,  which  church  you  are  pleased  to  call  "Utah  Mormon- 
ism,"  then  I  say  that  you  do  not  believe  in  the  atonement  of  our 
Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ.  To  this  I  will  refer  later. 


You  delight — as  all  anti-"Mormons"  do — in  referring  to 
statements  made  by  President  Brigham  Young,  Jedediah  M. 
Grant  and  others  during  the  troublous  times  preceding  the  advent 
of  Johnston's  army  into  Utah.  I  see,  too,  that  like  many  others, 
you  place  your  own  desired  interpretation  on  their  remarks, 
place  them  before  the  public  in  a  garbled  state,  taking  care  to 
give  the  darkest  interpretation  possible  from  which  the  public 
may  gather  false  conclusions.  You  take  great  pains  to  cover  up 
the  conditions  prevailing  which  called  forth  such  extreme  and 
in  some  instances  unwise  remarks.  Conditions  in  some  respects 
akin  to  those  surrounding  the  Saints  in  Missouri  in  1838-39  when 
other  unwise  remarks  were  made  by  members  of  the  leading 
quorums  of  the  Church,  but  in  a  sense  justifiable  and  which 
should  be  condoned  under  the  trying  circumstances  that  called 
them  forth. 


Writing  on  this  subject  Elder  B.  H.  Roberts,  in  his  criticism 
on  Harry  Leon  Wilson's  plagarisms  in  his  Uons   of  the  Lord, 

declares  the  position  taken  by  members   of  the  Church  and  all 
fair-minded  men  in  these  words: 

I  am  not  so  blind  in  my  admiration  of  the  "Mormon"  people  or  so 
bigoted  in  my  devotion  to  the  "Mormon"  faith  as  to  think  there  are  no 
individuals  in  the  Church  chargeable  with  fanaticism,  folly,  intemperate 
speech,  and  wickedness;  nor  am  I  blind  to  the  fact  that  some  in  their  over- 
zeal  have  lacked  judgment;  and  that  in  times  of  excitement,  under  stress 
of  special  provocation,  even  "Mormon"  leaders  have  given  utterances  to  ideas 
that  are  indefensible.  But  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  it  is  just  in  a  writer  of 
history,  or  of  "purpose  fiction,"  that  "speak  truly,"  to  make  a  collection  of 
these  things  and  represent  them  as  the  essence  of  that  faith  against  which 
said  writer  draws  an  indictment. 

"No  one  would  measure  the  belief  of  'Christians,'  "  says  a  truly  great 
writer,  "by  certain  statements  in  the  Fathers,  nor  judge  the  moral  principles 
of  Roman  Catholics  by  prurient  quotations  from  the  Casuist;  nor  yet  esti- 
mate Lutherans  by  the  utterances  and  deeds  of  the  early  successors  of  Luther, 
nor  Calvinists  by  the  burning  of  Servetus.  In  all  such  cases  the  general 
standpoint  of  the  times  has  to  be  first  taken  into  account." — Edeshiem's 
Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  preface  p.   8. 

A  long  time  ago  the  great  Edmund  Burke  in  his  defense  of  the  rashness 
expressed  in  both  speech  and  action  of  some  of  our  patriots  of  the  American 
revolution  period  said:  "It  is  not  fair  to  judge  of  the  temper  of  the  disposition 
of  any  man  or  any  set  of  men  when  they  are  composed  and  at  rest  from 
their  conduct  or  their  expressions  in   a   state   of   disturbance  and   irritation." 


The  justice  of  Burke's  assertion  has  never  been  questioned,  and  without  any 
wresting  whatever  it  may  be  applied  to  "Mormon"  leaders  who  sometimes 
spoke  and  acted  under  the  recollection  of  rank  injustice  perpetrated  against 
themselves  and  their  people;  or  to  rebuke  rising  evils  against  which  their 
souls  revolted 

Even  the  president  of  the  Reorganized  Church  recognized 
this  fact  in  his  answer  to  The  American  Baptist,  wherein  he 

Whoever  counseled  or  did  evil  in  those  times  (in  Missouri)  are  respon- 
sible, personally,  therefor;  but  the  church,  as  such  is  no  more  responsible 
for  it  than  were  the  early  Christians  for  Peter's  attempt  to  kill  the  high 
priest's  servant  when  he  cut  off  his  ear  with  his  sword.  The  church,  as  such, 
should  be  judged  by  its  authorized  doctrines  and  deeds,  and  not  by  the  un- 
authorized sayings  or  doings  of  some  or  many  of  its  members  or  ministers. 
It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  in  those  times  when  the  mebryo  au- 
thors and  abettors  of  the  "Border  Ruffianism"  that  reigned  in  Missouri  and 
Kansas  from  1854  to  1865  had  matters  all  their  own  way,  that  some  of  the 
Saints,  vexed,  confused  and  excited,  should  have  done  many  things  unwisely 
and   wrongfully,  and  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. — Saints'  Herald,  37:51. 

With  this  I  heartily  agree. 

Now,  when  the  statements  were  made,  which  you  in  a 
garbled  manner  both  quote  and  misquote,  there  was  in  Utah  a 
class  of  individuals  who  spent  the  greater  part  of  their  time  in 
circulating  wicked  and  malicious  reports  about  the  Saints, 
threatening  their  lives,  committing  crimes  and  attempting  to 
make  the  Saints  their  scape-goats.  The  officers  of  the  law 
were  General  Government  officials  appointed  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  I  am  sorry  to  say,  some  of  these  were 
among  the  chief  villifiers  of  the  people.  The  most  damnable 
and  bloodthirsty  falsehoods  were  concocted  and  served  up  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  stir  them  up  to  anger  against  the 
"despised  Mormons."  Almost  every  crime  that  was  committed 
within  a  thousand  miles  of  Salt  Lake  City  was  charged  to  the 
leaders  of  the  "Mormon"  people  and  became  the  foundation  of  a 
multitude  of  anti-"Mormon"  publications  that  still  flood  the  world. 
Because  of  these  false  and  highly  colored  tales,  in  1857 — one  year 
later  than  the  time  that  most  of  the  utterances  were  given  on 
which  you  so  delight  to  dwell — the  Government  of  the  United 
States  sent  an  army  to  suppress  in  Utah  a  rebellion  that  never 
existed,  and  forced  the  Saints  to  defend  themselves.  When  the 
Government  found  out  how  it  had  blundered  it  was  humiliated. 


Now,  in  brief,  these  were  the  conditions  at  the  time,  and  is  it 
any  wonder  that  unwise  and  even  harsh  things  were  said?  The 
wonder  is  that  the  people  bore  it  as  patiently  as  they  did.  The 
officers  were  non-"Mormons,"  the  Territory  was  under  Federal 
control  and  contained  many  Gentiles,  many  of  whom  were  most 
bitter  in  their  feelings  and  ever  ready  to  accuse  the  Saints  of 
crime.  The  government  was  strong  enough  to  enforce  the  law 
if  broken.  Now,  I  ask  you  if  you  believe  the  horrors,  as  they 
have  been  pictured,  could  have  existed  under  such  conditions  .f^ 

Such  a  state  of  affairs  would  have  been  a  reproach  and  a 
shame  to  the  American  government.  And  no  such  state  of  affairs 

The  conditions  at  the  time  led  Jacob  Forney,  superintendent 
of  Indian  affairs  in  Utah,  to  declare  in  1869: 

I  fear,  ind  I  regret  to  say  it,  that  with  certain  parties  here  there  is  a 
greater  anxiety  to  connect  Brigham  Young  and  other  Church  dignitaries  with 
every  criminal  offense  than  dihgent  endeavor  to  punish  the  actual  perpe- 
trators of  crime. 

Bancroft's  History  of  Utah,  p.  561. 

Whitney's  History  of  Utah,  p.   108,  vol.  i. 

Mr.  Forney  was  a  Gentile  official  and  the  truth  of  this  state- 
ment can  be  relied  upon. 

This  being  the  case,  Brigham  Young  and  the  "Mormon" 
people  could  not  have  engaged  in  the  crimes  charged  against 

In  connection  with  this  let  me  quote  from  Bancroft: 

It  is  not  true  that  Mormons  are  not  good  citizens,  lawabiding  and  pa- 
triotic. Even  when  hunted  down,  and  robbed  and  butchered  by  the  enemies 
to  their  faith,  they  have  not  retaliated.  On  this  score  they  are  naturally  very 
sore.  When  deprived  of  those  sacred  rights  given  to  them  in  common  with 
all  American  citizens,  when  disfranchised,  their  homes  broken  up,  their 
families  scattered,  their  husband  and  father  seized,  fined  and  imprisoned, 
they  have  not  defended  themselves  by  violence  but  have  left  their  cause  to 
God  and  their  country. — History  of  Utah,  pp.  390-392. 

Again,  I  repeat,  that  the  presence  in  Utah  of  apostates  and 
anti-"Mormons"  from  the  beginning  and  "that  there  are  men 
living  in  Utah  today  who  left  the  Church  in  the  earliest  history 
of  our  State,  who  feel  as  secure  and  are  just  as  secure  and 
free   from   molestation   from   their   former   associates    as    you    or 


any  other  man  could  be,"  proves  the  falseness  of  the  malicious 
accusation  that  "Utah  was  for  years  a  land  of  assassination  and 
a  field  of  blood." 


W^at  shall  be  done  with  the  sheep  that  stink  the  flock  so?  We  will 
take  them,  I  was  going  to  say,  and  cut  off  their  tails  two  inches  behind 
their  ears;  however  I  will  use  a  milder  term,  and  say  cut  off  their  ears. 

Your  conclusion  is  most  certainly  far  fetched.  Had  you  con- 
tinued the  quotation  your  attempt  would  have  appeared  even 
more  ridiculous.  The  next  sentence  is: 

But  instead  of  doing  this,  we  will  try  to  cleanse  them;  and  will  wash 
them  with  soap;  that  will  come  nigh  taking  off  the  skin;  we  will  then  apply 
a  little  Scotch  snuff,  and  a  little  tobacco,  and  wash  them  again  until  we 
make  them  clean. 

And  you  try  to  make  this  appear  as  threatening  life!  It  is 
apparent  that  your  sense  of  humor  has  been  sadly  neglected.  This 
whole  passage  is  humorous  and  you  make  yourself  ridiculous  by 
not  having  discovered  it. 

Again  from  Parley  P.  Pratt,  you  quote: 

My  feelings  are  with  those  who  have  spoken,  decidedly  and  firmly  so. 

This  from  page  84.  Then  you  skip  to  page  86  and  add: 

I  need  not  repeat  their  doom,  it  has  been  told  here  today,  they  have 
been  faithfully  warned. 

Then  three  paragraphs  off,  the  following: 

It  is  too  late  in  the  day  for  us  to  ^Stop  and  inquire  whether  such  an  out- 
cast has  the  truth. 

This  method  of  proving  things  reminds  me  of  the  reason 
why  you  should  be  hanged: 

And  Judas  "went  out  and   hanged  himself." 
"Go  thou  and  do  likewise." 

Now  let  me  quote  some  extracts  from  this  discourse  which 
you  purposely  left  out. 

Sooner  than  be  subjected  to  a  repetition  of  these  wrongs,  7  for  one, 
would  rather  march  out  today  and  be  shot  down.   These  are  my   feelings, 


and  have  been  for  some  time.  Talk  about  liberty  df  conscience!  Have  not 
men  liberty  of  conscience  here?  Yes.  The  Presbyterian,  Methodists,  Quakers, 
etc.,  have  here  the  liberty  to  worship  God  in  their  own  way,  and  so  has  every 
man  in  the  world.  People  have  the  privilege  of  '  apostatizing  from  this 
Church  and  worshiping  devils,  snakes,  toads,  or  geese,  if  they  please,  and 
only  let  their  neighbors  alone.  But  they  have  not  the  privilege  to  distrub 
the  peace,  nor  to  endanger  life  or  libert>';  that  is  the  idea.  If  they  will  take 
that  privilege,  /  need  not  repeat  their  doom,  it  has  been  told  here  today,  they 
have  been  faithfully  warned. 


He  (Gladden  Bishop)  was  disfellowshiped,  and  received  on  his  profes- 
sions of  repentance,  so  often,  that  the  Church  at  length  refused  to  admit  him 
any  more  as  a  member.  These  apostates  talk  of  proof.  Have  we  not  proved 
Joseph  Smith  to  be  a  prophet,  a  restorer,  standing  at  the  head  of  this  dispen- 
sation? Have  we  not  proved  the  priesthood  which  he  placed  upon  others  by 
the  command  of  God? 

I  see  no  ground,  then,  to  prove  or  to  investigate  the  calling  of  an  apos- 
tate, who  has  always  been  trying  to  impose  upon  this  people.  It  is  too  late 
in  the  day  for  us  to  stop  and  inquire  whether  such  an  outcast  has  the  truth. 

We  have  truths  already  developed,  unfulfilled  by  us — unacted  upon. 
There  are  more  truths  poured  out  from  the  eternal  fountain,  already  than 
our  minds  can  contain,  or  that  we  have  places  or  preparations  to  carry  out. 
And  yet  we  are  called  upon  to  prove — what?  Whether  an  egg  that  was  k.nown 
to  be  rotten  fifteen  years  ago,  has  really  improved  by  reason  of  age! 

"You  are  going  to  be  destroyed,"  say  they.  "Destruction  awaits  this  city." 
Well!  what  if  we  are?  We  are  as  able  to  be  destroyed  as  any  people  living. 
What  care  we  whether  we  are  destroyd  or  not?  These  old  tabernacles  will  die 
of  themselves,  if  left  alone. 

We  have  nothing  to  fear  on  that  head,  for  we  are  as  well  prepared  to 
die  as  to  live.  One  thing  we  have  heard  today,  and  I  am  glad  to  hear  it.  We 
shall  not  be  destroyed  in  the  old  way — as  we  have  been  heretofore.  We  shall 
have  a  change  in  the  manner,  at  least.  We  shall  probably  be  destroyed  stand- 
ing, this  time,  and  not  in  a  sitting,  or  lying  position.  We  can  die  as  well  as 
others  who  are  not  as  well  prepared!  I  am  glad  that  while  we  do  live  wc 
shall  not  submit  to  be  yoked  or  saddled  like  a  dumb  ass.  We  shall  not 
stand  still  to  see  men,  women,  and  children  murdered,  robbed,  plundered,  and 
driven  any  more,  as  in  the  States  heretofore.  Nor  does  God  require  it  at 
our  hands.  That  is  the  best  news  we  have  heard   today.    *   *   * 

It  is  the  policy  not  to  wait  till  you  are  killed,  but  act  on  the  defensive 
while  you  still  live.  I  have  said  enough  on  this  subject. — ^pp.   86-87. 

The  vicious  malignancy  of  a  depraved  mind  is  made  so 
apparent  in  this  contrast  between  your  garbled  quotations  and 
the    whole    truth,    that   it    scarcely    deserves    further    comment. 


I  have  quoted  quite  extensively  in  order  to  show^  the  reason 
for  these  remarks  of  which  you  quote  such  brief  and  disjointed 
extracts.  You  should  remember  that  the  Saints  had  but  a  short 
time  before  been  driven  from  their  homes  at  the  cannon's  mouth, 
and  were  forced  to  traverse  a  desert  under  the  most  trying  cir- 
cumstances to  find  a  new  abode  where  they  could  rest  in  peace 
and  call  their  souls  their  own.  When  followed,  as  they  were,  by 
a  miserable  class  that  were  determined  to  again  have  them 
driven,  where  heaven  only  knows,  in  their  might  and  righteous 
indignation  they  firmly  took  their  stand  for  home  and  liberty. 
I  for  one,  say  that  they  were  justified  in  this  course,  the  protec- 
tion of  their  liberty,  honor  and  lives.  Had  the  threats  of  their 
enemies  here  in  Utah  been  carried  out  as  they  boasted  that  they 
would  be,  and  as  they  were  carried  out  in  Missouri  and  Illinois, 
then  Brigham  Young  and  his  people  would  have  been  as  thor- 
oughly justified  in  unsheathing  the  bowie  knife,  to  conquer  or 
die,  as  were  the  patriots  at  Lexington  and  Bunker  Hill! 

Home  and  liberty  and  life,  with  the  right  to  worship  God, 
are  just  as  dear  to  a  "Mormon"  as  to  members  of  any  other 
denomination  or  even  an  apostate  "Mormon,"  and  when  the 
"Mormons"  are  persecuted,  driven  and  slain  and  forced  to  seek 
a  home  in  the  savage  wilds,  would  any  honest  man  blame  them 
if  they  declined  to  move  again.? 

Why  is  it  worse  for  "Utah  Mormons"  to  defend  themselves 
than  for  "Mormons"  at  Crooked  river  and  Nauvoo?  Even  the 
noble  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  when  dragged  from  home  and  per- 
secuted by  wicked  men,  solemnly  demurred.  Said  he  to  the 
Saints  at  Nauvoo  on  the  30th  day  of  June,  1843,  after  his  escape 
from  Missourian  assassins: 

Before  I  will  be  dragged  away  again  among  my  enemies  for  trial,  /  will 
spill  the  last  drop  of  blood  in  my  veins  and  will  see  all  my  enemies  in  hell! 
To  bear  it  any  longer  would  be  a  sin,  and  I  will  not  bear  it  any  longer. 
Shall  we  bear  it  any  longer?  (one  universal,  No!  ran  through  all  the  vast 
assembly  like  a  loud  peal  of  thunder.)  *  *  *  i£  mobs  come  upon  you  any 
more  here,  dung  your  gardens  with  them.  We  don't  want  any  excitement; 
but  after  we  have  done  all,  we  will  rise  up  Washington-like  and  break  off 
the  hellish  yoke  that  oppresses  us,  and  will  not  be  mobbed! 

I  have  copied  this  from  the  manuscript  history  of  the 
Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  as  it  was  recorded  at  the  time.  I  have 


learned   also  that  it  is   corroborated   by   the   journal   of   Wilford 
Woodruff  of  the  same  date — June  30th,  1843. 


You  say,  "I  have  read  that  which  leads  me  to  believe  that 
under  Brighamism" — as  you  slurringly  remark — "Utah  was  for 
years  a  land  of  assassination  and  a  field  of  blood,"  and  then  you 
ask  me,  "what  of  the  Mountain  Meadows  massacre, — the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Aiken  party;  the  dying  confession  of  Bishop  J.  D.  Lee; 
the  Hickman  butcheries;  the  Danites?" 

Well,  that  which  you  have  read  counts  for  but  litde  when 
the  source  is  considered.  Your  case  is  most  certainly  desperate 
when  you  are  forced  to  accept  the  statements  of  murderers. 

It's  a  strange  thing  that  you  and  many  of  your  elders  ac- 
cept all  the  blood-curdling  tales  from  Beadle,  Stenhouse  and 
other  apostate  sources  when  they  happen  to  refer  to  Brigham 
Young  and  "Utah  Mormons,"  and  denounce  the  same  sources 
when  they  refer  to  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith.  Yet,  I  repeat,  the 
same  class  of  charges — in  many  respects  identical — that  you  charge 
against  Brigham  Young,  of  murder,  bloodshed,  adultery,  and 
even  Danties,  were  first  made  by  bitter  enemies  of  the  Church 
before  the  death  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  and  that  just 
such  falsehoods  brought  about  the  bitterness  that  resulted  in  his 

You  resort  to  sources  that  even  the  editor  of  your  official 
paper  denounces  as  "Idle  and  vicious  stories  gathered  from  the 
awful  files  of  terrible  tales  told  about  the  Mormons,  by  those  at 
enmity  with  them." — Saints    Herald  52:2. 

If  you  desire  to  know  the  character  of  Christ  do  you  accept 
the  statements  of  the  Roman  guard  at  the  sepulchre?  the  Jew 
with  blood-stained  hands  who  rejoices  in  his  death?  and  the 
anti-Christian?  Wherein  then,  is  your  consistency  in  asking  me 
to  accept  the  testimony  of  those  whose  hands  are  imbrued  in 
blood,  apostates  and  bitter  enemies  of  my  people.^ 

Very  well  then,  I  return  your  question.  What  about  them? 
Pray  tell,  what  about  the  Mountain  Meadows  massacre?  the 
Aiken  party?  the  confessions  of  Lee.'    (by  the  way,  the  fact  that 


you  call  him  a  "Bishop"  proves  the  source  of  your  information); 
what  about  Hickman  and  above  all,  the  Danties? 

When  Alfred  Henry  Lewis,  in  Collier's  Weekly  of  March 
26,  1964,  stated,  "Brigham  Young  invented  his  destroying  angels, 
placed  himself  at  their  head,  and  when  a  man  rebelled  had  him 
murdered,  if  one  fled  the  fold,  he  was  pursued  and  slain,"  he 
repeated  one  of  the  most  colossal  falsehoods  ever  uttered.  Nor  is 
that  the  only  falsehood  in  his  article  you  are  pleased  to  quote. 

Brigham  Young  was  not  a  man  of  blood.  The  "Mormon" 
people  were  not  guilty  of  the  Mountain  Meadows  massacre.* 
There  was  no  destruction  of  an  Aiken  party.  Hickman  and  Lee 
are  not  worth  the  mention;  and  the  Danties!  Had  you  not  bet- 
ter read  Church  history  of  1838.?  In  Utah  there  never  were  de- 
stroying angels  or  Danties,  except  in  the  imagination  of  bitter 
anti-"Mormons"  and  I  am  satisfied  that  Mr.  R.  C.  Evans  knows 
that  fact. 


In  answer  to  your  many  charges  about  Utah  and  the  "Mor- 
mons,^'  I  desire  to  refer  to  credible  references  from  witnesses  who 
understood  the  truth  and  were  bold  enough  to  express  it. 

Last  winter  there  was  a  census  taken  of  the  Utah  Penitentiary  and  the 
Salt  Lake  City  and  county  prisons  with  the  following  result: — In  Salt  Lake 
City  there  are  about  75  Mormons  to  25  non-Mormons;   in   Salt  Lake  County 

*Writing  of  the  Mormon  Meadows  massacre  Hubert  H.  Bancroft,  in 
his  History  of  Utah,  page  544  says:  "Indeed  it  may  well  be  understood  at 
the  outset  that  this  horrible  crime,  so  often  and  so  persistently  charged  upon 
the  Mormon  church  and  its  leaders,  was  the  crime  of  an  individual,  the 
crime  of  a  fanatic  of  the  worst  stamp,  one  who  was  a  member  of  the  Mor- 
mon church,  but  of  whose  intentions  the  church  knew  nothing,  and  whose 
bloody  acts  the  members  of  the  church,  high  and  low,  regard  with  as  much 
abhorrence  as  any  out  of  the  church.  Indeed,  the  blow  fell  upon  the  broth- 
erhood with  threefold  force  and  damage.  There  was  the  cruelty  of  it,  which 
wrung  their  hearts;  there  was  the  odium  attending  its  performance  in  their 
midst;  and  there  was  the  strength  it  lent  their  enemies  further  to  malign  and 
molest  them.  The  Mormons  denounce  the  Mountain  Meadows  massacre,  and 
every  act  connected  therewith,  as  earnestly  and  as  honestly  as  any  in  the 
outside  world.  This  is  abundantly  proved,  and  may  be  accepted  as  a  his- 
torical  fact." 


there  are  about  80  Mormons  to  20  non-Mormons;  yet  in  the  city  prison 
there  were  29  convicts,  all  non-Mormons.  In  the  county  prison  there  were 
6  convicts  all  non-Mormons.  The  jailer  stated  that  the  county  convicts  for 
the  five  years  past  were  all   anti-Mormons   except  three!   *   =^    * 

Out  of  the  200  saloon,  billiard,  bowling  alley  and  pool  table  keepers  not 
over  a  dozen  even  profess  to  be  Mormons.  All  of  the  bagnios  and  other  dis- 
reputable concerns  in  the  territory  are  run  and  sustained  by  non-Mormons. 
Ninety-eight  per  cent  of  the  gamblers  in  Utah  are  of  the  same  element. 
*  *  *  Of  the  250  towns  and  villages  in  Utah,  over  200  have  no  "gaudy 
sepulchre  of  departed  virtue,"  and  these  two  hundred  and  odd  towns  are 
almost  exclusively  Mormon  in  population.  Of  the  suicides  committed  in  Utah 
ninety  odd  per  cent  are  non-Mormons,  and  of  the  Utah  homicides  and  in- 
fanticides over  80  per  cent  are  perpetrated  by  the  17  per  cent  of  "outsiders." 
— Phil  Robinson,   in  Sinners  and  Saiiils,  p.   72. 

The  Logan  police  force  is  a  good-tempered  looking  young  man.  There 
is  another  to  help  him,  but  if  they  had  not  something  else  to  do  they  would 
either  have  to  keep  arresting  each  other,  in  order  to  pass  the  time,  or  else 
combine  to   hunt  gophers   and   chipmunks. — Sinners  and  Saints,  p.    142. 

Whence  have  the  public  derived  their  opinions  about  Mormonism? 
From  anti-Mormons  only.  I  have  ransacked  the  literature  of  the  subject,  and 
yet  I  really  could  not  tell  any  one  where  to  go  for  an  impartial  book  about 
Mormonism,  later  in  date  than  Burton's  "City  of  the  Saints,"  published  in 
1862.  *  *  *  But  put  Burton  on  one  side  and  I  think  I  can  defy  any  one  to 
name  another  book  about  the  Mormons  worthy  of  honest  respect.  From  that 
truly  awjid  book,  "The  History  of  the  Saints,"  published  by  one  Bennet 
(even  an  anti -Mormon  has  styled  him  "the  greatest  rascal  that  ever  came 
to  the  west")  in  1842,  down  to  Stenhouse's  in  1873,  there  is  not,  to  my 
knowledge  a  single  Gentile  work  before  the  public  that  is  not  utterly  unre- 
liable from  distortion  of  facts.  Yet  it  is  from  these  books— for  there  are  no 
others — that  the  American  public  has  acquired  nearly  all  its  ideas  about  the 
people  of  Utah. — Sinners  and  Saints,  p.   245. 

And  in  relation  to  opposing  evidence,  almost  every  book  that  has  been 
put  forth  respecting  the  people  of  Utah  by  one  not  a  Mormon,  is  full  of 
calumny,  each  author  apparently  endeavoring  to  surpass  his  predecessor  in 
the  libertinism  of  abuse.  Most  of  these  are  written  in  a  sensadonal  style,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  deriving  profit  by  pandering  to  a  vitiated  public  taste,  and 
are  wholly  unreliable  as  to  facts. — Bancroft's  History  of  Utah,  preface  page  7. 

It  is  only  fair  to  state  that  no  Gentile,  even  the  unprejudiced,  who  are 
rare  aves,  however  long  he  may  live  or  intimately  he  may  be  connected  with 
Mormons,  can   expect  to  see  anything  but  the  superficies.   *   *   * 

The  Mormons  have  been  represented,  and  are  generally  believed  to  be, 
an  intolerant  race.  I  found  the  reverse  far  nearer  the  fact.  The  best  proof 
of  this  is  that  there  is  hardly  one  anti-Mormon  publication,  however  untruth- 


ful,  violent,  or  scandalous,  which  I  did  not  find  in  Great  Salt  Lake  City. 
— Burton's  City  of  the  Saints,  p.  203. 

I  have  not  yet  heard  the  single  charge  against  them  as  a  community, 
against  their  habitual  purity  of  life,  their  integrity  of  dealing,  their  tol- 
eration of  religious  differences  in  opinion,  their  regard  for  the  laws,  or 
their  devotion  to  the  Constitutional  government  under  which  we  live,  that 
I  do  not  from  my  own  observation,  or  the  testimony  of  others  know 
to  be  unfounded. — General  Thomas  L.  Kane,  U.  S.  A.,  The  Mormons, 
p.  83. 

The  Mormons  are  sober,  industrious  and  thrifty. — Bishop  Spaulding, 
of   the   Episcopalian   Church,   in   the   Forum,   March,    1887. 

Had  the  Mormons  been  a  low,  corrupt  or  shiftless  people  they  never 
would  or  could  have  done  what  they  did  in  Utah.  *  *  *  When  they  con- 
trolled their  own  city  of  Salt  Lake  it  contained  no  saloons,  gambling  houses 
or  places  of  ill  repute,  and  when  the  town  had  grown  to  be  a  goodly  city 
order  was  kept  by  two  constables.  If  by  their  fruits  we  may  know  them, 
the  Mormons  deserve  our  confidence  and  praise. — The  Brookjyti  Eagle, 
editorial  of  Aug.   12,   1897. 

I  shall  not  arraign  the  Mormon  people  as  wanting  in  comparison  with 
other  people  in  religious  devotion,  virtue,  honesty,  sobriety,  industry,  and 
the  graces  and  qualities  that  adorn,  beautify  and  bless  life. — Caleb  W. 
West,  Governor  of  Utah  (and  a  strong  anti-Mormon)  in  report  to  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  for  1888. 

I  know  the  people  of  the  east  have  judged  the  Mormons  unjustly. 
They  have  many  traits  worthy  of  admiration.  I  know  them  to  be  hon- 
est, faithful,  prayerful  workers.  —  D.  S.  Tuttle,  Bishop  Episcopalian 

T  never  met  a  people  so  free  from  sensualism  and  immorality  of  every 
kind  as  the  Mormons  are.  Their  habits  of  life  are  a  thousand  per  cent  supe- 
rior to  those  who  denounce  them  so  bitterly. — Mrs.  Olive  N.  Robinson. 
(1  recommend  this  to  you.) 

I  assure  you  there  are  many  others  of  equal  force  but  this 
should  be  sufficient  to  prove  the  scandalous  effusions  false  that 
you  profess  to  believe  true. 


I  am  glad  you  profess  to  believe  the  Bible.  There  is  one 
other  thing  which  appears  strange  to  me,  that  is,  why  yuu  are 
continually  denouncing  Brigham  Young  and  "Utah  Mormonism," 
and  calling  Utah  a  "land  of  assassination  and  a  field  of  blood," 
because  vile  men  without  conscientious  scruples  have  accused  the 
people  of  many  false  and  lurid  tales  of  blood,  and  at  the  same 
time  with  sanctimonious  countenance  and  upturned  eyes  you 
swallow  the  following  without  a  gulp: 


"Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  *  *  *  Now  go  up  and  smite  .\malek, 
and  utterly  destroy  all  that  they  have,  and  spare  them  not;  but  slay  both 
man  and  woman,  infant  and  suckling,  ox  and  sheep,  camel  and  ass."  I  Sam- 
uel  15:3    (I.  T.) 

Haven't  you  swallowed  the  camel   and   gagged   at    his  tail.' 


Just  a  word  or  two  now,  on  the  subject  of  blood  atonement. 
W/iai  is  that  doctrine?  Unadulterated  if  you  please,  laying  aside 
the  pernicious  insinuations  and  lying  charges  that  have  so  often 
been  made.  It  is  simply  this:  Through  the  atonement  of  Christ 
all  mankind  may  be  saved,  by  obedience  to  the  laws  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Gospel.  This  salvation  is  two-fold;  General, — that 
which  comes  to  all  men  irrespective  of  a  belief  in  Christ — and 
Individual, — that  which  man  merits  through  his  own  acts  through 
life  and  by  obedience  to  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  the  Gospel. 
But  man  may  commit  certain  grievous  sins — according  to  his  light 
and  knowledge — that  will  place  him  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
atoning  blood  of  Christ.  If  then  he  would  be  saved  he  must 
make  sacrifice  of  his  own  life  to  atone — so  far  as  in  his  power 
lies — for  that  sin,  for  the  blood  of  Christ  alone  under  certain 
circumstances  will  not  avail. 

Do  you  believe  this  doctrine?  If  not,  then  I  do  say  you 
do  not  believe  in  the  true  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ! 
This  is  the  doctrine  you  are  pleased  to  call  the  "blood  atone- 
ment of  Brighamism."  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Christ  our  Re- 
deemer, who  died  for  us.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Joseph  Smith, 
and  I  accept  it. 

In  whose  stead  did  Christ  die'  I  wish  your  church  mem- 
bers could  be  fair  enough  to  discuss  this  subject  on  its  merits. 

I  again  recommend  you  to  a  careful  reading  of  the  quota- 
tions in  my  open  letter.  You  will  find  them  as  follows:  Book 
of  Mormon, — II  Nephi  9:35.  Alma  1:13,  14,  and  42:19.  Bible, — 
Genesis  9:12,  13,  (I.  T.)  Luke  11:50.  Hebrews  9:22  and  10:26-29. 
I  John  3:15  and  5:16.  Doctrine  and  Covenants, — 87:7.  101:80. 
42:18,  19,  79.  (Utah  edition.) 

To  these  I  will  add: 

"Whoso  killeth  any  person,  the  murderer  shall  be  put  to  death  by 
the  mouth  of  witnesses;  but  one  witness  shall  not  testify  against  any  per- 
son to  cause  him  to  die. 


Moreover  ye  shall  take  no  satisfaction  for  the  life  of  a  murderer,  which 
is  guilty  of  death;  but  he  shall  be  surely  put  to  death. 

So  ye  shall  not  pollute  the  land  wherein  ye  are;  for  blood  it  defileth 
the  land;  and  the  land  cannot  be  cleansed  of  the  blood  that  is  shed  there- 
in, but  by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it." — Numbers  35:30,  31,  33. 
(I.  T.)* 

Do  you  want  a  few  references  of  where  men  were  right- 
eously slain  to  atone  for  their  sins.^*  What  about  the  death  of 
Nehor.?  (Alma  1:15)  Zemnariah  and  his  followers  (III  Nephi 
4:27-28).  What  about  Er  and  Onan,  whom  the  Lord  slew.?  (Gen. 
38:7,  10),  of  Nadab  and  Abihu.?  (Lev.  10:2)  and  the  death  of 
Achan.?  (Joshua  7:25.) 

Were  not  these  righteously  slain  to  atone  for  their  sins? 
And  it  was  of  this  class  of  cases  that  President  Young  referred 
in  his  discourse  you  misquote  {Journal  of  Discourses  4:220). 
He  tells  us  so,  in  the  same  discourse  in  the  portion  which  you 
did  not  quote.  It  is: 

"Now  take  the  wicked,  and  I  can  refer  you  to  where  the 
Lord  had  to  slay  every  soul  of  the  Israelites  that  went  out  of 
Egypt  except  Caleb  and  Joshua.  He  slew  them  by  the  hand  of 
their  enemies,  by  the  plague  and  by  the  sword.  Why?  Be- 
cause he  loved  them  and  promised  Abraham  he  would  save 


In  using  the  term  "polygamy"  in  reference  to  the  principle 
that  was  taught  and  practiced  by  the  Saints,  I  desire  it  distinctly 
understood  that  I  use  it  in  the  sense  of  a  man  having  more  than 
one  wife.  Polygamy,  in  the  sense  of  plurality  of  husbands  and 
of  wives  never  was  practiced  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter-day  Saints  in  Utah  or  elsewhere;  but  Celestial  marriage — 
including  a  plurality  of  wives — was  introduced  by  the  Prophet 
Joseph  Smith  and  was  practiced  more  generally  by  the  saints 
under  the  administration  of  President  Brigham  Young. 

You  say  that  you  have  no  evidence  that  those  men,  viz. 
Lyman  Wight,  James  J.  Strang,  Gladden  Bishop,  William  Smith 
and  others  that  I  mentioned  to  you  "practiced  polygamy"  before 
plural  marriage  was  "introduced"  (as  claimed  by  you)  by  Brigham 

•See  also  Doctrine  and  Covenants  section  101:80,  on  this  point. 


Young.  You  said  polygamy  was  "introduced"  eight  years  after 
the  Prophet's  death  by  Brigham  Young.  If  so,  then  why  did  these 
men  practice  it  before  that  time?  I  was  satisfied  that  you  would 
not  exert  yourself  in  seeking  for  this  knowledge  and  tried  to 
help  you  find  the  information, 


In  a  letter  written  by  the  President  of  the  Reorganized 
church  by  Mr.  Joseph  Davis  of  Wales,  dated  Lamonia,  Oct.  13, 
1899,  I   read: 

Nearly  all  the  factions  into  which  the  church  broke  had  plural  mar 
riage  in  some  form.  None  in  the  form  instituted  by  President  Young.  Sid- 
ney Rigdon  had  one  form  practiced  by  but  a  few,  and  that  spasmodically, 
as  an  outburst  of  religious  fervor  rather  than  as  a  settled  practice.  William 
Smith  had  a  sort  of  Priestess  Lodge,  in  which  it  was  alleged  there  was  a 
manifestation  of  licendousness.  This  he  denied,  and  I  never  had  actual 
proof  of  it.  Gladden  Bishop  taught  something  like  it,  but  I  believe  he  was 
himself  the  only  practioner.  James  J.  Strang  had  a  system  something  like 
Mohamet,  four  I  think,  being  allowed  the  king.  Lyman  Wight  had  a  sys- 
tem but  it  had  no  very  extended  range.  President  Young's  system  you  may 
know  of. 

It  is  true  that  William  Smith  denied  that  he  taught  "po- 
lygamy" but  that  he  practiced  plural  marriage  he  cannot  deny. 
Jason  W.  Briggs  said  he  (William)  did,  and  that  is  why  Mr. 
Briggs  left  his  church.  Plaintiff's  Abstract,  Temple  Lot  suit,  p. 
395.  Hist,  of  Reorg.  Ch.  vol.  3:200  and  The  Messenger,  vol.  2, 
William  entered  into  plural  marriage  in  the  Prophet's  day  and 
his  wives  lived  here  in  Utah.  They  are  Precilla  M.  Smith,  Sarah 
Libby  and  Hannah  Libby.  One  of  these  is  still  living. 

The  third  volume  of  vour  church  historv  savs  of  Lvman 

Lyman  Wight  lived  and  died  an  honorable  man,  respected  well  by 
those  who  knew  him  best.  The  only  thing  that  can  be  urged  against  his 
character  is  that  about  1845  or  1846  he  entered  into  the  practice  of 
polygamy,  but  we  have  seen  no  record  of  any  teaching  of  his  upon  the 

The  fact  is  that  Lyman  Wight  entered  into  that  relation 
before  the  time  here  mentioned.  Affidavits  in  this  regard  can 
be  produced  but  it  will  be  unnecessary. 

That  John  E.  Page   practiced   "polygamy"   I   have   the   testi- 


mony  of  his  wife,  Mrs.  Mary  Eaton  of  Independence,  who  told 
me  and  others,  in  August  1904,  that  she  gave  her  husband, 
John  E.  Page,  other  wives. 

These  men  did  not  follow  Brigham  Young,  but  denounced 
him,  yet  they  practiced  plural  marriage  and  did  not  get  that 
doctrine  from  him. 


The  "testimony"  you  submit  from  President  Young's  "legal 
wife"  is  spurious.  It  matters  not  if  you  did  receive  the  "informa- 
tion" from  your  uncle.  The  poor  man  was  tricked  and  deceived. 
Bogus  "wives"  and  "daughters"  of  President  Young  have 
"worked"  the  public  before.  Mary  Ann  Angel  Young,  President 
Young's  legal  wife,  was  not  in  Ck)lorado  in  i860  and  1861.  She 
never  was  divorced  and  died  in  this  city  true  to  her  husband,  his 
family  and  the  faith,  on  the  27th  day  of  June,  1882.  {News, 
July  5,  1882.)  So  much  for  this  "bogus"  testimony. 


The  testimony  of  T.  B.  H.  and  Fanny  Stenhouse  is  suf- 
ficiently impeached  in  the  Saints'  Herald,  vol.  52,  p.  2;  20,  p. 
602,  and  Sinners  and  Saints,  p.  245.  The  woman's  bitterness 
would  condemn  her  writings.  However  I  will  mention  one  state- 
ment— you  make  Mrs.  Stenhouse  say:  "It  is  reported  by  Fanny 
Stenhouse  and  many  others,  that  Joseph  Smith  said,  'If  ever  the 
Church  had  the  misfortune  to  be  led  by  Bro.  Brigham,  he  would 
lead  it  to  hell.'  "  She  gives  this  as  a  rumor  that  is  "reported,"  so 
do  the  "many  others"  who  are  mostly  from  your  church.  Oh, 
yes,  I  have  heard  of  this  before.  But  do  you  know  where  the 
report  originated?  It  originated  with  the  apostate  and  would-be 
assassin,  Robert  D.  Foster,  who  threatened  the  Prophet  Joseph's 
life  in  1844,  and  who  was  one  of  the  incorporators  and  advocates 
of  the  notorious  Nauvoo  Expositor,  and  one  of  the  chief  actors  in 
bringing  about  the  martyrdom,  June  27,  1844.  In  a  toadying 
letter  to  your  president,  dated  February  14,  1874,  he  said  the 
t^rophet  "remarked,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Law,  Bishop  Knight, 
John  P.  Greene,  Reynolds  Gaboon,  and  some  others,  that  if  ever 
Brigham  Young  became  the  leader  of  the  Ghurch,  he  would 
lead  them  down  to  hell." 



I  decline  to  accept  the  statements  of  such  a  character;  be- 
sides, President  Young  did  not  lead  the  Church  to  hell,  but 
preserved  it,  and  under  his  direction  it  grew,  expanded,  ana 
accomplished  a  wonderful,  even  a  miraculous  work.  In  the 
reclamation  of  the  arid  west,  the  permanent  establishment  of 
prosperous  communities  in  the  desert  wilds,  and  for  their  unity, 
strength,  and  industrial  and  temporal  independence,  the  "Mor- 
mon" people  are  today  the  marvel,  if  not  the  admiration  of 
the  thinking  world.  They  came  here  with  nothing  but  the  good 
will  of  God.  They  began  in  poverty,  and  "having  almost  noth- 
ing to  invest,"  says  Mr.  William  E  Symthe  in  The  Conquest 
of  Arid  America,  "except  the  labor  of  their  hands  and  brains,  and 
that  all  they  have  expended  in  a  period  of  fifty  years  for  all 
classes  of  improvements — from  the  first  shanty  to  the  last  turret 
of  the  last  temple — came  primarily  from  the  soil." 

Again  he  says  in  the  same  work: 


Nowhere  else  has  the  common  prosperity  been  reared  upon  firmer 
foundations.  Nowhere  else  are  institutions  more  firmly  buttressed  or  bet- 
ter capable  of  resisting  violent  economic  revolutions.  The  thunder  cloud  that 
passed  over  the  land  in  1893,  leaving  a  path  of  commercial  ruin  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  was  powerless  to  close  the  door  of  a  single  Mormon 
store,  factory  or  bank.  Strong  in  prosperity,  the  co-operative  industrial  and 
commercial  system  stood  immovable  in  the  hour  of  widespread  disaster.  The 
solvency  of  these  industries  is  scarcely  more  striking  than  the  solvency  of 
the  farmers  from  whom  they  draw  their  strength.  No  other  governor, 
either  in  the  West  or  in  the  East,  is  able  to  say  what  the  Honorable  Heber 
M.  Wells  said  in  assuming  the  chief  magistracy  of  the  new  state  in  January, 
1896,  "We  have  in  Utah,"  said  the  young  governor.  "19,816  farms,  and 
17,584  of  them  are  absolutely  free  from  incumbrance."  A  higher  percent- 
age in  school  attendance  and  lower  percentage  of  illiterates  than  even  m  the 
State  of  Massachusetts,  is  another  of  Utah's   proud  records.   P.   71. 


Without  the  divine  guidance  and  the  constant  watchcare  of 
Jehovah  over  the  destinies  of  the  "Mormon"  pioneers,  with 
Brigham  Young  at  their  head,  the  West  today  would  be  but  a 
barren  wilderness.  Under  the  leadership  of  Brigham  Young 
the   "Mormon"   people   prospered,   and   he   left   them   in   a   better 


condition  temporally  and  physically,  and  spiritually  more  united 
and  more  firmly  established  m  the  faith  than  they  ever  were 
before.  Where  among  the  so-called  "factions"  can  you  point  to 
one  tnat  has  accomplished  the  hundredth  part  of  what  the  fol- 
lowers of  Brigham  Young  have  accomplished?  They  have  all 
practically  disappeared  but  one — gone  to  their  destruction.  And 
the  one  that  remains  will  dissolve  and  disappear  as  surely  as  the 
sun  shines.  You  cannot  fight  the  work  of  God  and  prosper. 


The  testimony  of  William  Marks — a  man  who  was  out  of 
harmony  with  the  Prophet  before  the  latter's  death!  This  testi- 
mony of  William  Marks  sounds  too  suspicious,  given  as  it  was, 
when  it  was,  and  describing  an  alleged  conversation  which  never 
could  have  taken  place.  "The  reader  will  please  notice,"  said 
David  Whitmer  in  his  Address  (p.  41),  "this  fact  in  regard  to 
William  Marks'  statement;  and  that  is,  the  time  when  Brother 
Joseph  told  him  that  polygamy  must  be  put  down  in  the 
Church."  That  time  was  a  "few  days"  before  the  Prophet's  death. 

True,  the  Prophet  was  no  "fool"  {Herald  51:74),  and  such 
a  "conversation"  as  this  related  by  William  Marks  would  have 
stamped  him  "foolish,  irrational  and  a  moral  suicide,"  because 
he  could  not  bring  a  charge  against  others  for  that  for  which  he 
was  himself  responsible.  The  Prophet  had  plural  wives,  and  had 
officiated  in  the  ceremony  of  the  sealing  of  plural  wives  to 
others.  I  have  conversed  with  the  principals  in  these  cases,  and 
know  that  they  told  the  truth.  Furthermore,  Mr.  Marks'  testi- 
mony condemns  itself.  He  proves — if  he  proves  anything  at  all — 
that  the  Prophet  was  responsible  for  this  doctrine.  This  thought 
is  in  harmony  with  the  early  teachings  of  the  original  elders  of 
the  Reorganization,  for  the  time  was  when  even  your  ciders 
acknowledged  that  the  Prophet  received  the  revelation  on  celestial 
(including  plural)  marriage.  On  this  point  David  Whitmer  snys: 

As  time  rolled  on,  many  of  the  Reorganization  saw  that  to  continue 
to  acknowledge  that  Brother  Joseph  received  the  revelation  would  bring 
bitter  persecution  upon  themselves,  as  the  public  feeling  at  that  time  was 
very    bitter.    *    *    *    The    leaders    of    the    Reorganized    church,    after    a    time, 


began  to  suppress  their  opinions  concerning  this  matter.  They  would  an- 
swer the  question  when  asked  about  it  "I  do  not  kjiow  whether  Joseph 
Smith  received  the  revelation  or  not." 


Now,  if  it  is  true — and  I  claim  it  is — that  the  leaders  of 
the  Reorganized  church  acknowledged  that  the  Prophet  received 
the  revelation  and  practiced  that  principle,  there  must  be  some 
proof.  Turn  to  the  first  volume  of  the  True  L.D.S.  Herald  and 
read  the  editorial  on  pages  6  to  ii.  It  is  on  |X)lygamy.  After 
trying  to  explain  the  reason  why  the  Prophet  taught  and  prac- 
ticed this  doctrine,  the  editor  said: 

And  if  the  'prophet  be  deceived  when  he  hath  spoken  a  thing,  I,  the 
Lord,  have  deceived  the  prophet,  and  I  will  stretch  out  my  hand  upon  him 
and  will  destroy  him  from  the  midst  of  my  people  Israel.  *  *  *  We  have 
here  the  facts  as  they  have  transpired  and  as  they  will  continue  to  transpire 
in  relation  to  this  subject.  The  death  of  the  prophet  is  one  fact  that  has 
been  realized,  although  he  abhorred  and  repented  of  this  iniquity  before 
his  death.  Page  9. 

And  on  page  27: 

He  (Joseph  Smith)  caused  the  Revelation  to  be  burned,  and  when  he 
voluntarily  came  to  Nauvoo  and  resigned  himself  into  the  arms  of  his 
enemies,  he  said  that  he  was  going  to  Carthage  to  die.  At  that  time  he 
also  said  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  that  accursed  spiritual  wife  doctrine,  he 
would  not  have  come  to  that.  By  his  conduct  at  that  time  he  proved  the 
sincerity  of  his  repentance,  and  of  his  profession  as  a  prophet.  If  Abraham* 
and  Jacob,  by  repentance,  can  obtain  salvation  and  exaltation,  so  can  Joseph 

Mark  you,  we  have  the  evidence  of  the  revelation  from  your 
o>vn  side  and  you  well  remember  that  but  one  could  and  did 
receive  revelations.  I  do  not  accept  the  apology  of  your  editor; 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  Prophet  had  the  revelation  burned,  or 
called  the  doctrine  accursed.  My  faith  in  Joseph  Smith  is  such 
that  if  he  had  the  revelation — whic  your  witnesses  declare  he 
did — that  it  was  from  God  as  much  as  any  other  revelation  he 

*A    }')olyganiist     the    friend    of    Cod,    whose    praise    you    sing,    and    the 
man  \ou   are  glad  to  call    the  fatlier  of  the  faithful. — Saints'  Herald   52:437. 



Jason  W.  Briggs,  one  of  the  founders  of  your  church,  in 
the  Temple  Lot  suit,  said: 

I  heard  something  about  a  revelation  on  polygamy,  or  plural  marriage, 
when  I  was  in  Nauvoo,  in  1842.  I  heard  there  was  one:  there  was  talk  go- 
ing on  about  it  at  that  time,  and  continued  to  be;  but  it  was  not  called 
plural  marriage;  it  was  called  sealing. 

You  ask  me  what  I  understood  this  sealing  to  be,  at  the  time  the  talk 
was  going  on.  What  I  understood  it  to  be  was  sealing  a  woman  to  a  man 
to  be  his  wife,  to  be  his  wife  hereafter,  his  wife  in  the  spirit  world. 

I  was  asked  in  my  direct  examination  if  I  did  not  hear  of  the  doc- 
trine of  polygamy,  etc.,  and  I  answered  that  I  talked  with  members  with 
reference  to  sealing,  and  I  understood  that  the  doctrine  of  sealing,  was  for 
eternity;  it  was  sealing  a  man's  wife  to  him  for  eternity,  or  wives,  either. 
Record  pp.  349,  431,  505. 

James  Whitehead  said: 

There  was  an  ordinance  in  the  Church  for  sealing,  as  early  as  1842  or 

They  would  be  married  according  to  the  law  of  God,  not  only  for  time 
but  for  eternity  as  well. 

These  men  were  among  the  founders  of  your  church. 

Sidney  Rigdon,  in  a  lengthy  letter  to  his  official  paper, 
The  Messenger  and  Advocate,  in  1845  declared  that  the  Prophet 
was  responsible  for  the  plural  marriage  doctrine,  and  said: 

This  system  was  introduced  by  the  Smiths  some  time  before  their  death, 
and  was  the  thing  which  put  them  in  the  power  of  their  enemies,  and  was 
the  immediate  cause  of  their  death.  P.  475,  vol.   2. 

He  says  he  "warned  Joseph  Smith  and  his  family,"  and  told 
them  that  destruction  would  come  upon  them  if  they  continued 
in  their  course. 


You  "confidently  affirm  that  there  is  not  a  single  word  in 
a  single  sermon,  lecture,  statement,  newspaper  or  Church  publica- 
tion printed  during  the  life  of  Joseph  Smith,  wherein  he  by  word 
has   endorsed    the    doctrine    of    plurality   of    wives,   not   a    single 


statement."  Whether  any  such  statement  was  ever  printed  in  his 
lifetime  or  not  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  But  I  do  know  of  such 
evidence  being  recorded  during  his  lifetime,  for  I  have  seen  it. 

I  have  copied  the  following  from  the  Prophet's  manuscript 
record  of  Oct.  5,  1843,  and  know  it  is  genuine: 

Gave  instructions  to  try  those  persons  who  were  preaching,  teaching 
or  practicing  the  doctrine  of  pluraUty  of  wives;  for  according  to  the  law, 
I  hold  the  keys  of  this  power  in  the  last  days;  for  there  is  never  but  one 
on  earth  at  a  time  on  whom  this  power  and  its  keys  are  conferred;  and  I 
have  constantly  said  no  man  shall  have  but  one  wife  at  a  time  unless  the 
Lord  directs  otherwise. 

There  is  also  at  the  Historian's  office  in  this  city,  a  Bible, 
which  I  have  before  me,  containing  the  record  of  the  marriage 
of  Melissa  Lott  to  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  which  was  recorded 
at  the  time,  September  20,  1843.  This  Bible  also  contains  the 
record  of  the  sealing  of  Cornelius  P.  and  Parmelia  Lott,  parents 
of  Melissa,  which  was  done  by  Patriarch  Hyrum  Smith  in  the 
Prophet's  presence  and  with  his  "seal"  or  sanction.  The  president 
of  your  church  has  seen  this  record,  and  it  matters  not  what  he 
may  say  now  he  then  acknowledged  the  genuineness  of  the 

The  following  is  also  copied  from  the  journal  of  William 
Clayton  which  is  in  the  Historian's  office: 

May  1st,  (1843)  A.M.  At  the  Temple.  At  10  married  Joseph  to  Lucy 
Walker.  P.M.   at  Prest.   Joseph's;   he  has  gone  out  with   Woodsworth. 

This  is  the  same  William  Clayton  who  wrote  the  revelation 
at  the  direction  and  from  the  dictation  of  the  Prophet  July  12, 
1843.  However,  this  principle  was  first  revealed  to  the  Prophet 
several  years  before  that  time,  as  you  learned  in  your  conversa- 
tion with  President  Lorenzo  Snow,  when  you  were  in  his  office. 


Right  here  we  will  consider  the  "evidence"  you  produce 
to  show  that  "Joseph  Smith  and  the  Church  during  his  life- 
time condemned  polygamy  in  the  strongest  terms."  The  testi- 
mony of  the  thirty-one  witnesses  you  "produce"  was  against 
the  "secret  wife  system"  of  the  vile  John  C.   Bennett  who  was 


excommunicated  for  betraying  female  virtue.  This  Bennett  sys- 
tem had  nothing  to  do  with  the  system  of  cekstial  marriage  in- 
troduced by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  and  was  no  more  Uke 
the  Prophet's  doctrine  than  darkness  is  like  daylight.  The  cer- 
tificate of  these  parties  that  you  mention  was  given  in  October 
1842  (T.  &  S.  3:939),  nearly  one  year  before  the  revelation  on 
celestial  marriage  was  recorded.  At  that  time  the  law  of  mar- 
riage in  the  Church  was  that  adopted  in  1835,  and  was  binding 
on  all  who  had  accepted  the  higher  law,  and  they  were  few 
in  number.*  The  best  proof  that  these  "witnesses"  did  not  con- 
demn the  celestial  marriage  doctrine  of  the  prophet  in  this  com- 
munication, is  that  out  of  the  thirty-one,  at  least  sixteen  have 
testified  that  the  Prophet  introduced  that  system.  One  of  this 
number  of  witnesses  became  the  Prophet's  wife,  one  performed 
a  marriage  ceremony  in  which  the  Prophet  was  married  to  a  plural 
wife,  and  one  other  was  a  witness  to  such  a  marriage  ceremony. 
At  least  six  testify  that  the  Prophet  taught  them  the  principle  of 
plural  marriage  and  the  others,  so  far  as  I  know,  are  not  on  rec- 
ord. That  these  witnesses  were  the  dupes  of  Brigham  Young 
cannot  truthfully  be  said,  for  three  of  them  left  the  Church  and 
never  followed  Brigham  Young,  yet  they  testify  of  these  things. 

The  action  of  Joseph  and  Hyrum  Smith,  as  recorded  in 
the  Times  and  Seasons  (5:3),  wherein  Hyrum  Brown  was  cut  off 
the  Church  for  preaching  polygamy  and  other  false  doctrines, 
was  just  and  timely.  The  same  action  would  have  been  taken 
at  any  other  period  of  the  existence  of  the  Church.  Polygamy 
never  was  a  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  the  system  introduced 
by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  was  not  called  by  that  name  in  his 
day.  Nor  was  the  system  of  the  Prophet  the  same  as  that  of 
Hyrum  Brown;  and  if  it  had  been,  the  ruling  of  the  Prophet  of 
October   5,    1843,   would    have    cost    Brown    his    standing   in    the 

*Thcse  thirty-one  witnesses  were:  S.  Bennett,  George  Miller,  Alpheus 
Cutler,  Reynolds,  Cahoon,  Wilson  Law,  Wilford  Woodruff,  Newel  K.  Whit- 
ney, Albert  Petty,  Elias  Higbee,  John  Taylor,  Ebenezer  Robinson,  Aaron 
Johnson,  Emma  Smith,  Elizabeth  A.  Whitney,  Sarah  M.  Cleveland,  Eliza  R. 
Snow,  Mary  C.  Miller,  Lois  Cutler,  Thirza  Cahoon,  Ann  Hunter,  Jane 
Law,  Sophia  Marks,  Polly  Z.  Johnson,  Abagail  Works,  Catharine  Petty, 
Sarah  Higbee,  Phebe  Woodruff,  Leonora  Taylor,  Sarah  Hillman,  Rosanna 
Marks,  and  Angeline  Robinson. 


Church,  the  polygamy  of  Brown  and  John  C.  Bennett  was  of 
their  own  make.  In  relation  to  this  subject,  I  will  quote  from  the 
Life  of  John   Taylor,  pages  223-224: 

The  polygamy  and  gross  sensuality  charged  by  Bennett  and  repeated 
by  those  ministers  in  France,  had  no  resemblance  to  celestial  or  patriarchal 
marriage  which  Elder  Taylor  knew  existed  at  Nauvoo,  and  which  he  had 
obeyed.  Hence  in  denying  the  false  charges  of  Bennett,  he  did  not  deny 
the  existence  of  that  system  of  marriage  that  God  had  revealed;  no  more 
than  a  man  would  be  guilty  of  denying  the  legal,  genuine  currency  of  the 
country  by  denying  the  genuineness  and  denouncing  what  he  knew  to  be  a 
mere  counterfeit  of  it. 

Another  illustration:  Jesus  took  Peter,  James  and  John  into  the  moun- 
tain, and  there  met  with  Moses  and  Elias,  and  the  glory  of  God  shone 
about  them,  and  these  two  angels  talked  with  Jesus,  and  the  voice  of  God 
was  heard  proclaiming  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  After  the  glorious  vision, 
as  Jesus  and  His  companions  were  descending  the  mountain,  the  former 
said:  "Tell  the  vision  to  no  man,  until  the  Son  of  Man  be  risen  from  the 
dead."  Suppose  one  of  these  apostles  had  turned  from  the  truth  before  the 
Son  of  Man  was  risen  from  the  dead  and  under  the  influence  of  wicked, 
lying  spirit,  should  charge  that  Jesus  and  some  of  his  favorite  aposdes  went 
up  into  a  mountain,  and  there  met  Moses  and  Elias, — or  some  persons  pre- 
tending to  represent  them — together  with  a  group  of  voluptuos  courtesans, 
with  whom  they  spent  the  day  in  licentious  pleasure.  If  the  other  apostles 
denounced  that  as  an  infamous  falsehood,  would  they  be  untruthful?  No; 
they  would  not.  Or  would  they  be  under  any  obligations  when  denying  the 
falsehoods  of  the  apostate  to  break  the  commandments  the  Lord  had  given 
them  by  relating  just  what  had  happened  in  the  mountain?  No;  it  would 
have  been  a  breach  of  the  Master's  strict  commandment  for  them  to  do  that. 
So  with  Elder  Taylor.  While  he  was  perfectly  right  and  truthful  in  deny- 
ing the  infamous  charges  repeated  by  his  oponents,  he  was  under  no 
obligation  and  had  no  right  to  announce  to  the  world,  at  that  time  the 
doctrine  of  celestial  marriage.  It  was  not  the  law  of  the  Church,  or  even 
the  law  of  the  Priesthood  of  the  Church;  the  body  thereof  at  the  time 
knew  litde  or  nothing  of  it,  though  it  had  been  revealed  to  the  Prophet 
and  made  known  to  som.e  of  his  most  trusted  followers.  But  today,  now 
that  the  revelation  on  celestial  marriage  is  published  to  the  world,  if  the 
slanderous  charges  contained  in  the  writings  of  John  C.  Bennett  should 
be  repeated,  every  Elder  in  the  Church  could  truthfully  and  consistendy  do 
just  what  Elder  Taylor  did   in   France — he  could   deny   their  existence." 


After  receiving  your  letter,  I  requested  of  my  father  that 
he  give  me  a  written  statement  in  answer  to  your  charge  that 
he  "discussed"  the  doctrine  of  "polygamy"  with  you,  and  re- 
ceived the  following: 


Joseph  F.  Smith,  Jr. 

Dear  Son: — ^You  have  submitted  to  me  some  statements  made  by  Mr. 
R.  C.  Evans  of  the  Reorganized  church,  and  desire  to  knovi'  what  I  have  to 
say  about  them.  He  says:  "If  your  father  denies  that  he  and  I  discussed  the 
doctrine  of  polygamy,  all  I  have  to  say  about  it  is,  that  what  he  states  is 
untrue."  Perhaps  .1  could  dismiss  this  statement  precisely  in  the  same  way  he 
has.  I  could  certainly  do  so  far  more  truthfully.  He  and  I  did  not  discuss 
the  doctrine  of  "polygamy"  at  all.  It  is  true  I  did  introduce  him  to  Presi- 
dent Ivorenzo  Snow,  to  Aunt  Lucy  W.  Smith,  to  Aunt  Catherine  P.  Smith, 
to  Heber  J.  Grant  and  a  few  others.  Whatever  "discussion"  he  had  on  the 
"doctrine  of  polygamy"  may  have  been  with  these  parties,  but  not  with  me. 
While  in  my  company  he  was  my  guest  by  introduction  from  my  cousin 
Joseph  Smith,  president  of  the  Reorganized  church,  and  I  carefully  avoided 
any  discussion  with  him  upon  any  and  all  differences  of  opinion  which  ex- 
isted between  us,  the  discussion  of  which  could  only  have  resulted  in  ill 
feeling  and  perhaps  extreme  bitterness.  I  treated  him  as  any  gentleman  should 
treat  another,  noi  as  an  antagonist  but  as  a  stranger  within  my  gates,  indeed, 
as  my  guest;  and  when  we  parted  it  was  with  mutual  good  feelings  and 
interchange  of  kindly  wishes,  without  the  slightest  breath  or  suspicion  of 
unpleasantness,  which  must  have  existed  had  we  indulged  in  a  "discussion 
of  the  doctrine  of  polygamy,"  or  any  other  points  of  difference. 

Aunt  Catherine  P.  Smith  was  making  us  a  short  visit  at  the  time,  and 
I  introduced  her  to  Mr.  Evans  as  the  wife  of  my  father,  Hyrum  Smith. 
They  had  some  conversation,  in  which  I  took  no  part,  and  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection  he  drew  out  from  her  the  fact  that  she  was  married  to  Hyrum 
Smith,  by  Joseph  Smith  the  Prophet,  in  August  1843,  in  the  brick  ofl&ce  of 
Hyrum  Smith,  at  Nauvoo,  in  the  presence  of  her  mother,  Sarah  Godshall 
Phillips,  Mrs.  Julia  Stone  and  her  daughter  Hettie. 

Mr.  Evans  attempted  to  cross-question  her  on  her  statement,  but  she 
stoutly  and  unequivocally  affirmed  the  truth  of  what  she  had  said.  Mrs. 
Lizzie  Wilcox,  your  mother  and  two  or  three  other  members  of  the  family 
were  present  and  heard   what  was  said. 

"With  reference  to  Mr.  Evans'  alleged  interview  with  Aunt  Lucy  W. 
Smith  at  the  Theatre,  I  need  only  say  I  occupied  a  seat  adjoining  them,  and 
heard  the  conversation  between  them,  and  I  have  not  the  slightest  recol- 
lection of  the  statement  he  has  made  about  that  interview.  The  strong 
point  which  he  attempts  to  make  is  the  fact  that  Lucy  was  married  to  the 
Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  on  May  i,  1843,  while  the  revelation  on  plural  mar- 
riage was  dated  "July  12,  1843,"  and  her  consequent  embarrassment,  was 
far-fetched;  for  no  one  knew  better  than  she  did  that  the  revelation  was 
given  as  far  back  as  1834,  and  was  first  reduced  to  writing  in  1843.  And 
on  one  could  have  been  better  prepared  to  state  that  fact  than  Aunt  Lucy 
W.  Smith.  There  could  not  be,  therefore,  any  cause  for  embarrassment 
on  her  part  on  that  score,  and  I  apprehend  she  would  have  been  one  of 
the  last  persons  to  "sit  silent  and  confused"  under  such  an  implied  im- 

That  bhe  bore  testimony  to  the  good  character  of  Aunt  Emma  Smith 
with    reference    to   other    matters    than    plural    marriage    is    true;    but    not    to 


her  conduct  toward  that  principle.  Aunt  Lucy  is  still  living,  and  sound 
mentally  and  physically.  She  can,  and  no  doubt  will,  fully  clear  away  any 
sophistry  and  falsehood  of  Mr.  Evans'  statement  of  the  alleged  interview. 
Referring  to  the  interview  with  President  Snow,  Mr.  Evans  says: 
"Lorenzo  Snow  did  testify  to  me  as  stated.  But  then  and  there,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Joseph  F.  Smith  and  George  Q.  Cannon,  I  showed  his  tesdmony 
to  be  false  by  his  own  evidence  when  given  under  oath,  and  his  sister's 
statement  signed  in  1842.  At  this,  Snow,  Cannon  and  Smith  were  much 
annoj^ed.  So  much  for  your  father's  statement,  which  says  'you  did  not  say 
one  word  to  him  in  relation  to  polygamy.'  "  The  fact  is,  President  Snow 
gave  Mr.  Evans,  in  my  presence  and  hearing,  a  plain,  simple  narration  of 
the  instructions  he  received  from  Joseph  Smith  in  regard  to  the  doc- 
trine of  plural  marriage,  including  almost  word  for  word  the  statement 
he  had  previously  made  under  oath,  and  testified  that  Joseph  informed  him 
that  his  sister  Eliza  R.  Snow  had  been  sealed  to  him  as  his  wife.  This 
much  and  more  in  this  line  I  distinctly  heard  and  as  distinctly  remember, 
but  I  did  not  hear  the  alleged  arraignment  of  President  Snow's  testimony 
by  Mr.  Evans,  nor  did  I  witness  or  experience  any  "annoyance"  on  the 
part  of  myself  or  anyone  present  because  of  the  said  arraignment.  Indeed, 
I  am  prepared  to  aflirm  that  Mr.  Evans  did  not  "then  and  there"  in  my 
presence  and  that  of  Geo.  Q.  Cannon,  nor  in  the  presence  of  any  one  there, 
"show  his  (Snow's)  testimony  to  be  false,"  either  "by  his  own  evidence 
when  given  under  oath,"  or  "by  his  sister's  statement  signed  in  1842,"  or 
at  any  other  time. 

I  am  here  constrained  to  say  that  Mr.  Evans  was  treated  by  President 
Snow,  as  also  by  President  George  Q.  Cannon  and  myself,  in  the  most  cour- 
teous and  respectful  manner,  and  so  far  as  I  observed  his  demeanor  towards 
us  was  reciprocal  and  gentlemanly — and  not  one  word  was  said  to  him  by 
anyone  nor  by  him  to  anyone  in  my  presence  that  was  in  any  degree  dis- 
courteous, contentious  or  embarrassing. 

I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  foregoing  statements  made  by  Mr.  Evans, 
were  after  thoughts  uttered  by  him  with  a  view  to  misrepresent  the  truth 
and  the  facts,  on  the  lines  of  the  bitter  and  relentless  opposition  of  himself 
and  associates  to  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  in  general, 
and  the  doctrine  of  plural  marriage  in  particular,  as  revealed,  taught  and 
practiced  by  Joseph  Smith  himself,  from  whom  Brigham  Young  and  many 
others  received  it.  On  these  matters  they  are  so  surcharged  with  animus 
that  they  will   not  receive,  admit,  or  tell   the   truth. 

With  reference  to  Mr.  Evans'  allusion  to  my  first  wife  I  will  simply 
say:  She  was  most  intimately  acquainted  from  her  childhood  with  the  young 
lady  who  became  my  second  wife,  and  it  was  with  their  full  knowledge  and 
consent  that  I  entered  into  plural  marriage,  my  first  wife  being  present  as 
a  witness  when  I  took  my  second  wife,  and  freely  gave  her  consent  thereto. 
Our  associations  as  a   family  were  pleasant  and   harmonious. 

It  was  not  until  long  after  the  second  marriage  that  my  first  wife 
was  drawn  away  from  us,  not  on  account  of  domestic  troubles,  but  for 
other  causes  which  I  do  not  care  to  mention.  In  eight  years  of  wedded 
life  we  had  no  children.  She  constantly  complained  of  ill  health  and  was 
as    constantly    under    a    doctor's    care.    She    concluded    to    go    to    California 


for  her  health  and  before  going  procured  a  separation.  This  all  occurred 
previous  to  1867.  On  March  i,  1868  I  married  Sarah  E.  Richards,  and 
January  i,  1870,  I  married  Edna  Lambson,  from  one  to  three  years  after 
my  first  wife  separated  from  me,  and  had  become  a  resident  of  California. 
She  subsequently  returned  to  Utah  and  later  went  to  St.  Louis  where  she 

Your  self-exaltation  in  classing  yourself  with  Jacob  is  most 
stupendous,  to  say  the  least.  He  was  above  accepting  idle  rumors, 
from  such  sources  as  those  given  by  the  writer  of  the  article  of 
Collier  s  which  you  quote,  and  which  are  false.  Jacob  was  no 

Aunt  Catherine  Phillips  Smith  also  declares  that  she  did 
testify  to  you  in  regard  to  her  marriage  and  that  you  questioned 
her  quite  closely.  My  mother  declares  the  same  for  she  was 
present  at  the  conversation.  Presidents  Snow  and  Cannon  are 
not  here  to  speak  in  their  defense,  but  I  am  satisfied  that  they 
would  bear  witness  to  the  foregoing  letter.  Aunt  Lucy  may 
testify  for  herself. 


The  day  I  received  a  copy  of  the  Ensign  containing  your 
discourse  from  which  you  give  extracts  in  your  "reply,"  in  re- 
lation to  your  "conversation"  with  Aunt  Lucy  W.  Smith,  I  sent 
her  a  copy  of  your  remarks  with  the  request  that  she  tell  me 
if  you  had  correctly  reported  her  testimony.  In  the  course  of  a 
few  days  I  received  this: 

My  Dear  Boy:  I  very  much  regret  not  feeling  able  to  answer  your 
request  at  an  earlier  date.  I  am,  however,  much  improved  in  health 
since  coming  to  Logan,  and  take  pleasure  in  declaring  to  you  that  the 
infamous  discourse  delivered  i6th  Feb.  1905  (the  date  of  the  Ensign) 
at  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  by  Mr.  Evans,  is  a  fabrication  of  falsehoods  and 
misrepresentations.  I  confess  that  I  was  not  only  surprised,  but  shocked 
beyond  measure.  Now  one  of  the  presidency  of  the  Reorganized  church, 
just  think  of  it!  And  at  the  time  he  came  to  Salt  Lake  City  three  years  ago, 
he  claimed  to  be  one  of  "young  Joseph's  aposdes;  came  with  a  letter  of 
introduction  from  cousin  Joseph  to  his  cousin  Joseph  F.,  saying  that  any 
courtesy  shown  him  would  be  appreciated.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Evans  was 
shown  every  consideration.  He  accepted  the  generous  hospitality  of  our 
President  and  his  model  family.  Having  expressed  a  desire  to  nieet  Mrs. 
Lucy  W.  Kimball,  who  was  engaged  that  afternoon,  arrangements  were 
made  to  meet  at  the  theatre,  as  he  had  to  leave  next  day.  He  asked  me 
many  questions  which  I  answered  frankly — some  very  offensive  hearsay 
questions  that  aroused  my  indignation,  but  I  bore  the  ordeal  as  a  martyr 
should.     And     from    this     opportunity     sprang    the     wonderful     discourse    of 


wicked  falsehood  and  malicious  misrepresentation.  O,  shame!  Where  canst 
thou  hide  thy  brazen  face  I  How  dare  he  resort  to  such  infamy  unless  to 
satiate  a  morbid  desire  for  notoriety  among  sensation-mongers,  who  seek 
not  for  light  or  truth  1  If  so  he  only  gratified  the  cravings  of  the  basest 
and  lowest  caste. 

I  cannot  believe  that  the  once  highly  and  beloved  Emma  who  was  so 
loyal  and  true  to  her  husband  in  all  the  early  trials  and  hardships  to  which 
he  was  subject,  when  in  chains  and  bondage,  when  he  was  dragged  from 
his  bed,  tarred  and  feathered,  imprisoned  and  mocked  and  scoffed  at, 
ridiculed  and  abused,  and  his  life  threatened  by  infuriated  mobs  and  she 
stood  by  him  and  comforted  him  in  all  of  his  afflictions — I  cannot  believe 
after  enduring  all  this  for  his  sake,  that  Emma  Smith  ever  denied  seeing 
the  revelation  on  celestial  marriage  after  receiving  it  in  good  faith  and 
accepting  it  as  a  command  from  God,  knowing  as  I  do.  that  she  taught 
it  to  Eliza  and  Emily  Partridge,  Maria  and  Sarah  Lawrence,  and  urged 
them  to  accept  it  by  being  sealed  to  her  husband.  She  treated  them  kindly 
and  considerately  and  knew  they  were  associated  with  him  as  his  wives. 
She  was  then  a  happy  woman,  until  the  tempter  came  in  human  form, 
and  she  partook  of  the  apostate  spirit  so  rife  in  those  days.  She  could  not 
deny  these  facts  without  sinning  against  her  husband,  sinning  against  his 
wives,  against  the   truth,   and   against  her   Godl 

If  her  son  insists  that  this  denial  was  her  last  testimony  he  fastens  a 
stigma  on  her  once  noble  character  in  the  estimation  of  her  former  friends 
and  associates,  who  were  familiar  with  the  facts  of  the  period  referred  to. 
This  misguided  son,  young  and  without  experience,  was  surrounded  by 
his  father's  most  wicked  enemies  who  had  betrayed  his  father,  and  had 
been  instrumental  in  taking  his  life;  and  who,  after  they  had  accomplished 
this  foul  act,  through  sinister  policies,  determined  to  destroy  the  work  his 
father  was  commanded  to  do,  and  had  laid  a  permanent  foundation  on 
which  to  build  up  his  church — the  Church  of  Christ.  They  sought  to  in- 
fluence his  son  against  the  teachings  of  his  father,  call  him  forth  as  a 
"leader"  with  promises  of  success,  and  good  backing.  Poor  boy  was  flat- 
tered and  led  on  and  on,  by  crafty  men,  until  he  became  an  unbeliever  of 
the  principles  his  father  had  taught;  and  I  cannot  but  believe  that  through 
such  influences  his  mother  has  been  misrepresented.  I  am  unwilling  to 
believe  otherwise. 

I  expressed  regrets  to  Mr.  Evans  in  relation  to  the  course  taken  by 
"young  Joseph"  through  the  influence  of  the  bitter  opponents  of  his 
father.  I  said  he  had  closed  his  eyes  to  anything  that  would  cast  a  ray  of 
light  on  the  vexed  question:  "Did  my  father  have  more  [other]  wives 
than  my  mother.-"  I  answered  truthfully  without  hesitation.  Afterwards 
he  went  to  Lehi.  called  on  Melissa  Lott,  with  whom  he  had  been  associated 
from  early  childhood  and  asked:  "Will  you  answer  me  one  question,  I 
come  to  you  knowing  vou  will  tell  me  the  truth,  were  you  my  father's 
wife?"  "Yes,  Joseph,  I  was."  "Where  is  your  proof.-"  She  stepped  to  the 
stand  and  took  the  family  Bible  opened  to  the  family  record,  placed  it  on 
his  knee  and  asked:  "Do  you  recognize  the  handwriting-"  "Certainlv 
that    is    your    father's     (Cornelius    P.    Lett's    handwriting,    know    it    as    well 


as  my  own."  Then  read  the  marriage  certificate  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  and 
Melissa  Lott. 

Oliver  Huntington  who  is  still  living  testifies  that  they  were  very  inti- 
mate as  boys,   and   when  together  had   often   talked   the  matter  over. 

Referring  to  Mr.  Evans  again.  I  said:  "Does  this  prove  him  (Joseph) 
an  honest  man?"  Now  does  this  cover  the  ground  of  your  inquiry?  I  have 
so  often  been  interrupted  by  callers,  that  I  may  not  have  been  explicit 
enough.  My  personal  testimony  you  already  have,  if  not  you  can  get  it  by 
referring  to  "Reminiscences  of  Latter-day  Saints,"  by  L.  O.  Littlefield,  which 
you  will  find  at  the  President's   (Historian's)   office. 

Does  this  read  much  Hke  she  had  been  correctly  repre- 
sented ? 


In  reference  to  the  wicked  charge  you  make  in  your  dis- 
course mentioned  in  Aunt  Lucy's  letter,  against  President  Young 
of  practicing  gross  immorality  while  on  his  mission  in  England 
in  1840  and  winter  of  1841,  a  sufficient  answer  will  be  found  in 
the  revelation  of  January  19,  1841,  wherein  the  Lord,  by  revela- 
tion through  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  declares: 

I  give  to  you  my  servant  Brigham  Young,  to  be  a  President  over  the 
Twelve  traveling  Council, 

Which  Twelve  hold  the  keys  to  open  up  the  authority  of  my  king- 
dom upon  the  four  corners  of  the  earth,  and  after  that  to  send  my  word  to 
every  creature. 

And  the  revelation  of  July  9,  1841,  given  after  his  return 
from  England: 

*  *  *  Verily  thus  saith  the  Lord  unto  you,  my  servant  Brigham,  it  is 
no  more  required  at  your  hand  to  leave  your  family  as  in  times  past,  for 
your  offering  is  acceptable  to  me. 

In  this  abusive  charge  against  President  Young  you  are 
striking  at  Jehovah,  and  accusing  Him,  either  of  condoning  such 
a  grievous  sin,  or  failing  to  discover  it.  Such  a  charge  as  that  is 
ridiculously  absurd,  I  feel  safe  in  accepting  the  word  of  the 
Lord  in  preference  'to  the  ribald,  indecent  statements  of  those 
who  speak  forth  the  vulgar  desires  of  their  own  minds. 


Joseph  F.  Smith,  Jr. 



In  both  replies  to  Mr.  Evans,  mention  is  made  of  two 
articles  in  the  Saints'  Herald,  volume  one,  that  were  written  by 
Isaac  Sheen,  the  first  editor  of  that  paper.  These  references  were 
ignored  by  Mr.  Evans  in  his  publication  of  a  portion  of  the 
foregoing  correspondence.  It  would  occupy  too  much  space  to 
copy  these  articles  in  full  as  they  are  quite  lengthy,  but  I  feel 
that  the  gist  of  the  matter  should  be  presented  in  more  detail  than 
it  is  given  in  the  replies. 

Mr.  Sheen's  argument  is  that  the  Saints  at  Nauvoo  "set  up 
their  idols  in  their  heart,"  and  went  to  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith 
and  asked  him  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  and  ascertain  from  Him 
if  it  would  not  be  proper  for  them  to  practice  plural  marriage. 
This  the  Prophet  Joseph  did  and  in  answer  the  Lord  gave  him 
the  revelation  on  celestial  marriage,  granting  the  practice  of 
plural  marriage,  and  then,  after  giving  this  revelation  the  Lord 
smote  the  Prophet  for  his  "iniquity"  in  asking  for  the  revela- 
tion, and  poured  out  wrath  and  indignation  upon  the  Saints  for 
their  participation  in  what  he  calls  "abominations," 

Reference  is  also  made  to  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel,  Balaam 
and  Micaiah  to  substantiate  his  theory  which  Mr.  Sheen  admits 
he  is  unable  to  "satisfactorily  explain."  An  extensive  quotation 
from  the  first  article  follows,  which  will  give  an  idea  of  the 
position  in  which  the  members  of  the  Reorganized  church  re- 
gard the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  and  the  culmination  of  his  most 
glorious  mission. 


We  might  call  your  attention  to  many  prophecies  in  the  Bible  which 
these  backsliders*  have  fulfilled  by  their  abominations.  Ezekiel  appears 
to  have  had  a  very  clear  manifestation  of  the  wickedness  of  these  men 
and  the  plan  pursued  by  them,  by  which  they  embark  into  polygamy.  In 
Ezekiel  14  c.  i,  5,  v,  the  prophet  says,  "Then  came  certain  elders  of 
Israel   unto  me,   saying,   Son  of  man,   these  men   have   set  up   their   idols   in 

*°The  Prophet  Joseph   Smith,   Brigham   Young  and   the   Saints. 


their  heart  and  put  the  stumbUngblock  of  their  iniquity  before  their  face: 
should  I  be  inquired  of  at  all  by  them?  Therefore  speak  unto  them,  and 
say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God;  Every  man  of  the  house  of  Israel 
that  setteth  up  his  idols  in  his  heart,  and  putteth  the  stumbUngblock  of  his 
iniquity  before  his  face,  and  cometh  to  the  prophet;  I  the  Lord,  will 
answer  him  that  cometh  according  to  the  multitude  of  his  idols;  that  I 
may  take  the  house  of  Israel  in  their  own  heart,  because  they  are  all 
estranged  from  me  through  their  idols."  We  have  shown  you  that  God 
gave  a  revelation  unto  us  in  which  he  commanded  that  every  man  should 
"cleave  unto  his  wife  and  none  else,"  and  that  he  commanded  us  saying, 
"Repent  and  remember  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  former  command- 
ments which  I  have  given  them,  not  only  to  say,  but  to  do  according  to 
that  which  I  have  written,"  and  that  in  that  book  there  is  much  testimony 
against  polygamy.  All  these  instructions  were  sufficient  for  our  guidance, 
but  "men  have  set  up  their  idols  in  their  hearts,  and  put  the  stumbUngblock 
of  their  iniquity  before  their  faces."  This  adulterous  spirit  had  captivated 
their  hearts  and  they  desired  a  license  from  God  to  lead  away  captive  the 
fair  daughters  of  His  people,  and  in  this  state  of  mind  they  came  to  the 
Prophet  Joseph.  Could  the  Lord  do  anything  more  or  less  than  what 
Ezekiel  hath  prophesied?  The  Lord  hath  declared  by  Ezekiel  what  kind 
of  an  answer  he  would  give  them,  therefore  he  answered  them  according 
to  the  multitude  of  their  idols.  Paul  had  also  prophesied  that  "for  this 
cause  God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion,  that  they  should  believe  a  lie; 
that  they  all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure 
in  unrighteousness."  Both  these  prophecies  agree.  In  Ezekiel's  prophecy  the 
Lord  also  says,  "I  will  set  my  face  against  that  man,  and  will  make  him 
a  sign  and  a  proverb,  and  I  will  cut  him  off  from  the  midst  of  my  people; 
and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord.  And  if  the  prophet  be  deceived 
when  he  hath  spoken  a  thing,  I  the  Lord  have  deceived  that  prophet,* 
and  I  will  stretch  out  my  hand  upon  him  and  I  will  destroy  him  from  the 
midst  of  my  people  Israel.  And  they  shall  bear  the  punishment  of  their 
iniquity;  the  punishment  of  the  prophet  shall  be  even  as  the  punishment  of 
him  that  seeketh  unto  him;  that  the  house  of  Israel  may  go  no  more  astray 
from  me,  neither  be  polluted  any  more  with  all  their  transgression;  but 
that  they  may  be  my  people,  and  I  may  be  their  God,  saith  the  Lord 
God,"  8c.,  1 1  V.  We  have  here  the  facts  as  they  have  transpired  and  as 
they  will  continue  to  transpire  in  relation  to  this  subject.  The  death  of 
the  prophet  is  one  fact  that  has  been  realized  although  he  abhorred  and 
repented  of  this  iniquity  before  his  death.  This  branch  of  the  subject  we 
shall  leave  to  some  of  our  brethren,  who  are  qualified  to  explain  it 
satisfactorily.  Those  who  have  practiced  these  abominations  have  become  "a 
sign  and  a  proverb"  among  men  in  accordance  with  this  prophecy. 
These  are  the  "false  teachers"  prophesied  of  by  Peter,  of  whom  he  said 
"many  shall  follow  their  pernicious  ways;  by  reason  of  whom  the  way 
of  truth  shall  be  evil  spoken  of.  And  through  covetousness  shall  they 
with     feigned     words     make    merchandise    of    you;     whose     judgment     now 

*The    inspired    translation    reads:    "I    the    Lord    have    not    deceived    that 


of  a  long  time  lingereth  not,  and  their  abomination  slumbereth  not."  The 
reason  why  the  Lord  destroyed  the  prophet  and  made  those  who  "set  up 
their  idols  in  their  heart,"  a  sign  and  a  proverb,  made  them  bear  the 
punishment  of  their  iniquity  is  worthy  of  our  earnest  attendon.  We 
are  informed  that  the  reason  why  the  Lord  would  perform  all  these 
things  was  this,  "that  the  house  of  Israel  may  go  no  more  astray  from 
me,  neither  be  polluted  any  more  with  all  their  transgressions;  but  that  they 
may  be  my  people,  and  I  may  be  their  God."  Here  is  positive  evidence 
that  this  prophecy  was  to  be  rultilled  in  the  last  days,  for  there  has  only 
been  a  small  part  of  the  house  of  Israel  (at  any  time  since  this  prophecy 
was  given)  that  were  obedient  to  the  Lord.  The  time  is  not  fully  come 
when  Israel  shall  "go  no  more  astray,"  and  not  "be  polluted  any  more 
with  all  their  transgressions,"  therefore  the  punishment  of  these  men  who 
have  committed  these  sins  must  continue  until  that  happy  day  shall  come. 
But  as  the  Lord  says  in  this  prophecy,  "repent  and  turn  yourselves  from 
your  idols;  and  turn  away  your  faces  from  your  abominations,  so  say 
we,  and  return  unto  the  fold  from  whence  \ou  have  strayed."  As  some  may 
yet  doubt  whether  God  would  act  in  this  way  toward  men  who  set  up  their 
idols  in  their  heart,  we  will  see  how  God  dealt  with  Balaam.  In  Numbers 
22  c.  we  are  informed  that  Balak,  king  .of  the  Moabites,  sent  the  elders  of 
Moab  and  Midian  unto  Balaam  with  the  rewards  of  divination  in  their  hands 
to  entreat  him  that  he  would  curse  Israel,  but  God  said  unto  Balaam, 
"Thou  shalt  not  go  with  them;  thou  shalt  not  curse  the  people,  for  they  are 
blessed."  And  Balaam  rose  up  in  the  morning,  and  said  unto  the  Princes 
of  Balak,  "Get  you  unto  your  land;  for  the  Lord  refuseth  to  give  me  leave 
to  go  with  you."  And  Balak  sent  yet  again  princes,  more,  and  more  honor- 
able than  they.  And  they  came  to  Balaam  and  said  to  him,  "Thus  sayeth 
Balak,  the  son  of  Zippor,  let  nothing,  I  pray  thee,  hinder  thee  from  coming 
unto  me:  For  I  will  promote  thee  unto  very  great  honor,  and  I  will  do 
whatsoever  thou  sayest  unto  me;  come,  therefore,  I  pray  thee,  curse  me 
this  people."  Now  although  the  Lord  had  said  unto  Balaam,  "Thou  shalt 
not  go  with  them;  thou  shalt  not  curse  the  people,  for  they  are  blessed," 
yet  the  great  honor  that  was  offered  him,  allured  him,  and  he  inquired  of 
the  Lord  again,  and  said  unto  the  princes,  "Tarry  ye  also  here  this  night, 
that  I  may  know  what  the  Lord  will  say  unto  me  more."  And  God  came 
unto  Balaam  at  night,  and  said  unto  him,  "If  the  men  come  to  call  thee, 
rise  up  and  go  with  them:  but  yet  the  word  which  I  shall  say  unto  thee,  that 
shalt  thou  do."  And  Balaam  rose  up  in  the  morning  and  saddled  his  ass, 
and  went  with  the  princes  of  Moab.  And  God's  anger  was  kindled  because 
he  went;  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord  stood  in  the  way  for  an  adversary 
against  him.  So  we  find  that  the  Lord  told  him  not  to  go,  but  afterwards, 
having  "set  up  his  idol  in  his  heart"  he  inquired  of  the  Lord  again 
whether  he  might  not  go  and  curse  Israel  and  God's  anger  was  kindled 
against  him  because  he  did  so,  although  God  had  commanded  him  to  go. 
This  is,  therefore,  a  parallel  case  with  Ezekiel's  prophecy.* 

In   I   Kings,    22    c.    we   are   informed    that   the   King   of   Israel   wanted 

*Mr.    Sheen    forgets    that    the    Lord    said.    "Thou    shalt    not    curse    the 
people,   for  they   are   blessed,"   which   command   Balaam   hearkened   to. 


Jehoshaphat,  king  of  Judah,  to  go  up  with  him  to  Ramoth-Gilead  to 
battle,  and  there  were  four  hundred  prophets  who  said  "Go  up,  for  the 
Lord  shall  deliver  it  into  the  hands  of  the  king."  And  Jehoshaphat  said, 
"Is  there  not  here  a  prophet  of  the  Lord  besides,  that  we  might  inquire  of 
him?"  And  the  king  of  Israel  said  unto  Jehoshapat,  "There  is  yet  one, 
Micaiah,  the  son  of  Imlah,  by  whom  we  may  inquire  of  the  Lord;  but  I 
hate  him,  for  he  doth  jiot  prophesy  good  concerning  me,  but  evil."  And 
Jehoshaphat  said,  "Let  not  the  king  say  so."  So  he  was  sent  for.  The  mes- 
senger that  was  gone  to  call  Micaiah  spake  unto  him,  saying,  "Behold 
now  the  words  of  the  prophets  declare  good  unto  the  king  with  one 
mouth:  let  thy  word,  I  pray  thee,  be  hke  the  word  of  one  of  them,  and 
speak  that  which  is  good."  And  Micaiah  said,  "As  the  Lord  liveth,  what 
the  Lord  saith  unto  me,  that  will  I  speak."  We  are  then  informed  that 
Micaiah  prophesied  like  the  false  prophets,*  and  then  against  them. 
And  he  said,  "I  saw  the  Lord  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  hosts 
of  heaven  standing  by  him  on  his  right  hand  and  on  his  left.  And  the 
Lord  said,  Who  shall  persuade  Ahab  that  he  may  go  up  and  fall  at 
Ramoth-Gilead  ?  And  one  said  on  this  matter,  and  another  said  on  that 
manner.  And  there  came  forth  a  spirit  and  stood  before  the  Lord  and 
said,  I  will  persuade  him.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him  wherewith?  And 
he  said,  I  will  go  forth,  and  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his 
prophets.  And  he  said,  thou  shalt  persuade  him,  and  prevail  also;  go  forth 
and  do  so.  Now  therefore  behold  the  Lord  hath  put  a  lying  spirit  in  the 
mouth  of  all  these  thy  prophets,  and  the  Lord  hath  spoken  tvil  concern- 
ing thee."  This  doctrine  was  extensively  preached  in  the  Church  before 
iniquity  overthrew  the  Church,  and  by  this  doctrine  the  Church  might 
have   bren   saved,  if   men   had   not   "set  up   their   idols  in   their   heart." 

*The  prophecy  was;  "Go  and  prosper;  for  the  Lord  shall  deliver  it 
into  the  hands  of  the  king,"  v.  15.  This  was  uttered  in  mockery,  if  rK>t 
why  did  the  king  reply:  "How  many  times  shall  I  adjure  thee  that  thou 
tell  me  nothing  but  that  which  is  true  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  v.  16. 
Then  Micaiah  told  the  king  that  he  should  fall  at  Ramoth-Gilead,  so  the 
king  acted  with  full  knowledge  of  the  word  of  the  I^rd  concerning  his 
death  when  he  went  forth  to  battle.  Therefore  the  Lord  did  not  deceive 
Ahab  in  this  matter. 



Additional  testimony  of  a  few  out  of  the  multitude*  of  wit- 
nesses who  were  taught  these  principles  by  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith,  and  who  knew  that  he  received  the  revelation  known  as 
section  132  in  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants. 


In  the  month  of  April,  1843,  I  returned  from  my  Euro- 
pean mission.  A  few  days  after  my  arrival  at  Nauvoo,  when 
at  President  Joseph  Smith's  house,  he  said  he  wished  to  have 
some  private  talk  with  me,  and  requested  me  to  walk  out  with 
him.  It  was  toward  evening.  We  walked  a  little  distance  and 
sat  down  on  a  large  log  that  lay  near  the  bank  of  the  river.  He 
there  and  then  explained  to  me  the  doctrine  of  plurality  of 
wives;  he  said  that  the  Lord  had  revealed  it  unto  him,  and  com- 
manded him  to  have  women  sealed  to  him  as  wives;  that  he 
foresaw  the  trouble  that  would  follow,  and  sought  to  turn  away 
from  the  commandment;  that  an  angel  from  heaven  then  ap- 
peared before  him  with  a  drawn  sword,  threatening  him  with  de- 
struction unless  he  went  forward  and  obeyed  the  commandment. 

He  further  said  that  my  sister  Eliza  R.  Snow  had  been 
sealed   to   him   as    his    wite   for   time    and    eternity.    He    told    me 

*Onc  hunched  or  more  afluhnits  in  relation  to  the  introduction  of 
celestial  and  jilural  marriai^e  are  on  file  in  the  liistorian's  Office,  Salt  Lake 
City,  and  are  the  expressions  of  e\e  and  ear  witnesses,  who  know  that  the 
Prophet  Josepii  Smith  introduced  cUid  taught  celestial  and  plural  marriage. 
Most  of  these  witnesses  are  members  of  the  Church,  but  some  of  them 
are  not,  and  have  not  been  connected  with  the  Church  from  before  the 
iiiartyrdom  of  the  Prophet  and  Patriarch.  It  w;)uld  be  impracticable  and 
e\-cn  unnecessary  to  jirodiict'  all  this  e\idcnce  here.  A  portion  should  suf- 
iice.  in  order  that  the  truth  re,L,ardir.L:  the  introduction  of  these  principles 
should  be  established;  for.  in  this  case  as  in  all  others,  the  testimony  of 
two  or  lliree  reliable  witnesses  slv^uld  establish  the  trutbi  of  these  things. 
C'elestial  marriage,  which  is  marriage  for  eternit)'.  shouul  not  be  confused 
with  plurality  of  \\:\es.  as  is  often  done  by  tliose  not  acquainted  with  these 


that  the  Lord  would  open  the  way,  and  I  should  have  women 
sealed  to  me  as  wives.  This  conversation  was  prolonged,  I 
think  one  hour  or  more,  in  which  he  told  me  many  important 

I  solemnly  declare  before  God  and  holy  angels,  and  as  I 
hope  to  come  forth  in  the  morning  of  the  resurrection,  that  the 
above  statement  is  true. 

Loren2xD    Snow. 
Territory    of    Utah,  | 

Box  Elder  County,  j 

Personally  came  before  me  J.  C.  Wright,  Clerk  of  the 
County  and  Probate  Courts  in  and  for  the  County  and  Terri- 
tory aforesaid,  Lorenzo  Snow,  and  who  being  duly  sworn  de- 
poseth  and  says  that  the  foregoing  statement  by  him  subscribed 
is  true  of  his  own  certain  knowledge. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal  of  Court,  at  my  office  in  Brigham 
City,   Box  Elder   County,  Utah  Territory,   this   28th  day   of   Au- 
gust, A.D.   1869. 
[Seal.]  J.  C.  Wright,  Clerk. 


United    States    of    America, 

State  of  Utah. 

County  of  Salt  Lake. 

Lucy  Walker  Smith  Kimball,   being  first  duly   sworn,   says: 

I  was  a  plural  wife  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  and  was 
married  for  time  and  eternity  in  Nauvoo,  State  of  Illinois,  on 
the  first  day  of  May,  1843,  by  Elder  William  Clayton.  The 
Prophet  was  then  living  with  his  first  v?ife,  Emma  Smith,  and 
I  know  that  she  gave  her  consent,  to  the  marriage  of  at  least 
four  women  to  her  husband  as  plural  wives,  and  she  was  well 
^ware  that  he  associated  and  cohabited  with  them  as  wives. 
The  names  of  these  women  are  Eliza  and  Emily  Partridge,  and 
Maria  and  Sarah  Lawrence,  all  of  whom  knew  that  I  too  was 
his  wife. 

When  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  mentioned  the  prmciple 
of  plural  marriage  to  me  I  felt  indignant,  and  so  expressed  my- 
self to  him,  because  my  feelings  and  education  were  averse  to 
anything    of    that    nature.    But    he    assured    me    that    this    doc- 


time  had  been  revealed  to  him  of  the  Lord,  and  that  I  was  en- 
titled to  receive  a  testimony  of  its  divine  origin  for  myself.  He 
counseled  me  to  pray  to  the  Lord,  which  I  did,  and  thereupon 
received  from  Him  a  powerful  and  irresistible  testimony  of  the 
truthfulness  and  divinity  of  plural  marriage,  which  testimony 
has  abided  with  me  ever  since. 

On  the  8th  day  of  February,  1845,  I  was  married  for  time 
to  President  Heber  C.  Kimball,  and  bore  to  him  nine  children. 
And  in  this  connection  allow  me  to  say  to  his  everlasting  credit 
that  during  the  whole  of  my  married  life  with  him  he  never 
failed  to  regard  me  as  the  wife  for  eternity  of  his  devoted  friend, 
the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith. 

Lucy    Walker   Smith   Kimball. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  17th  day  of  De- 
cember, 1902. 

[Seal. J  James  Jack,  Notary  Public. 


United  States  of  America, 
State  of  Utah. 

County  of  Salt  Lake. 
Catherine  Phillips  Smith,*  being  first  sworn,  says: 
I  am  the  daughter  of  Thomas  Denner  and   Sarah   Godshall 

Phillips,   and   was   born   in   Philadelphia,    State    of   Pennsylvania, 

*Some  time  during  the  month  of  September  four  members  of  the 
Reorganized  Church  called  on  Catherine  Phillips  Smith  at  her  home  in 
East  Jordan,  with  the  object  in  view  of  having  her  deny  her  testimony 
regarding  her  marriage  to  the  Patriarch  Hyrum  Smith,  which  she  reso- 
lutely refused   to  do. 

In  a  statement  given  on  September  24th,  two  days  before  her  death, 
she  said:  "They  tried  to  get  me  to  tell  a  lie  and  deny  that  I  was  mar- 
ried to  the  Patriarch  Hyrum  Smith;  but  I  would  not  do  it.  I  never  have 
lied  and  wi.U  not  now;  my  affidavit  is  true.  They  asked  me  if  my  mother 
knew  of  my  marriage,  and  I  told  them  that  the  Patriarch  asked  my 
mother  if  she  was  willing  for  him  to  marry  her  daughter,  and  she  said 
he  could  ask  the  daughter,  and  she  could  do  as  she  pleased.  I  told  them  that 
the  Prophet  Joseph  sealed  me  to  the  Patriarch  Hyrum  Smith  as  his  wife 
for  time  and  all  eternity,  and  they  tried  to  get  me  to  deny  it,  and  I 
would  not  do  it,  for  it  is  true.  I  told  them  the  truth.  They  annoyed  me 
very  much,  and  I  finally  told  them  to  leave  my  house  and  never  enter  it 


on  the  Hrst  day  of  August,   1819.  My  present  residence  is  East 
Jordan,  Salt  Lake  County,  Utah, 

I  was  married  to  Hyrum  Smith,  brother  of  the  Prophet 
Joseph  Smith,  as  his  plural  wife,  and  lived  with  him  as  his 
wife.  The  sealing  was  performed  by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith 
himself,  in  Nauvoo,  State  of  Illinois,  in  August,  1843,  in  the 
brick  office  belonging  to  my  husband,  and  occupied  at  the  time 
as  a  dwelling  by  Brother  and  Sister  Robert  and  Julia  Stone,  and 
was  witnessed  by  my  mother.  Sister  Stone  and  her  daughter 

In  consequence  of  the  strong  feeling  manifested  at  the  time 
against  plural  marriage  and  those  suspected  of  having  entered 
into  it,  I,  with  my  mother,  moved  to  St.  Louis  near  the  close  of 
the  year,  where  I  was  living  when  the  Prophet  Joseph  and  my 
husband  were  martyred. 

The  purpose  of  this  affidavit  is  that  my  testimony  to  the 
truthfulness  and  divinity  of  plural  marriage  may  live  after  I 
shall  have  passed  away;  and  in  this  spirit  I  commend  it  to  all 
to  whom  it  may  come. 

Catherine  Phillips   Smith. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this  28th  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 1903. 

[Seal]  L.  John  Nuttall,  Notary  Public. 


Territory  of  Utah   | 
County  of  Iron.       ^ 

Be  it  remembered  on  this  first  day  of  August  A.  D.  1883, 
personally  appeared  before  me  John  W.  Brown  a  notary  public 
in  and  for  said  county,  Almira  W.  Johnson  Smith  Barton,  who 
was  by  me  sworn  in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  her  oath  says: 
I  am  a  citizen  in  the  Territory  of  Utah,  over  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years,  and  I  am  the  daughter  of  Ezekiel  Johnson  and  Julia 
Hills  Johnson  his  wife;  that  I  was  born  at  Westford,  in  the 
State  of  Vermont  on  the  22nd  day  of  October  A.D.  1813;  that  I 
had  nine  brothers  who  were  named  respectfully  Joel  H.,  Seth, 
David,  Benjamin  F.,  Joseph  E.,  Elmer,  George  W.,  William  D., 
and  Amos;  and  six  sisters  named  respectfully  Nancy,  Dulcena, 
Julia,  Susan,  Mary  and  Esther,  all  of  whom,  with  myself,  were 


baptized   into   the   Church   of   Jesus   Christ   of   Latter-day    Saints 
with  the  exception  of  Elmer,  who  died  in  infancy. 

Deponent  further  says,  that  in  the  years  1842  and  1843,  I 
resided,  most  of  the  time  at  Macedonia,  in  the  County  of  Han- 
cock, State  of  IlUnois,  sometimes  with  my  sister  who  was  the 
wife  of  Almon  W.  Babbitt,  and  sometimes  with  my  brother 
Benjamin  F.  Johnson.  During  that  time  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith  taught  me  the  principle  of  celestial  marriage  including 
plurality  of  wives  and  asked  me  to  become  his  wife.  He  first 
spoke  to  me  on  this  subject  at  the  house  of  my  brother  Benjamin 
F,  I  also  lived  a  portion  of  the  time  at  Brother  Joseph  Smith's 
in  Nauvoo,  when  many  conversations  passed  between  him  and 
myself  on  this  subject.  On  a  certain  occasion  in  the  spring  of  the 
year  1843,  the  exact  date  of  which  1  do  not  now  recollect,  I 
went  from  Macedonia  to  Nauvoo  to  visit  another  of  my  sisters, 
the  one  who  was  the  widow  of  Lyman  R.  Sherman,  deceased,  at 
which  time  I  was  sealed  to  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith.  At  the 
time  this  took  place  Hyrum  Smith,  Joseph's  brother,  came  to 
me  and  said  I  need  not  be  afraid.  I  had  been  fearing  and 
doubting  about  the  principle  and  so  had  he,  but  he  now  knew  it 
was  true.  After  this  time  I  lived  with  the  Prophet  Joseph  as  his 
wife,  and  he  visited  me  at  the  home  of  my  brother  Benjamin  F. 
at  Macedonia. 

Deponent  further  says  that  I  had  many  conversations  with 
Eliza  Beaman  who  was  also  a  wife  of  Joseph  Smith,  and  who 
was  present  when  I  was  sealed  to  him,  on  the  subject  of  plurality 
of  wives,  both  before  and  after  the  performance  of  that  cere- 
mony. And  also  that  since  the  death  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith 
I  was  married  for  time  to  Reuben  Barton  of  Nauvoo,  Hancock 
Co.,  III.,  by  whom  I  have  had  five  daughters,  one  only  of  whom 
is  now  living. 

Almira  W.  Johnson  Smith  Barton. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Almira  W.  Johnson 
Smith  Barton  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[Seal.]  John  W.  Brown,  Notary  Public. 



Territory  of  Utah  | 

County   of  Millard. j 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  eighth  day  of  July,  A.D. 
1869,  personally  appeared  before  me  Edward  Partridge,  Probate 
Judge  in  and  for  said  county,  Martha  McBride  Kimball,  who 
was  by  me  sworn  in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  her  oath  saith 
that  sometime  in  the  summer  of  the  year  1842,  at  the  city  of 
Nauvoo,  county  of  Hancock,  state  of  Illinois,  she  was  married  or 
sealed  to  Joseph  Smith,  President  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Latter-day  Saints,  by  Heber  C,  Kimball,  one  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles  in  said  Church,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  same  regul- 
lating  marriage. 

Martha  McBride  Kimball. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  said  Martha  McBride  Kimball 
the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[Seal.]      1  Edward   Partridge,   Probate   Judge. 


Territory  of  Utah  Iss 

County  of  Salt  Lake. J 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  twentieth  day  of  May,  A.D. 
1869,  personally  appeared  before  me,  James  Jack  a  notary  public 
in  and  for  said  county,  Melissa  Lott  Willes,  who  was  by  me 
sworn  in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  her  oath  saith  that  on  the 
twentieth  day  of  September,  A.D.  1843,  at  the  city  of  Nauvoo, 
county  of  Hancock,  state  of  Illinois,  she  was  married  or  sealed  to 
Joseph  Smith,  President  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter- 
day  Saints,  by  Hyrum  Smith,  Presiding  Patriarch  of  said  Church, 
according  to  laws  of  the  same,  regulating  marriage,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Cornelius  P.  Lott  and  Parmelia  Lott. 

Melissa  Lott  Willes. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Melissa  Lott  Willes, 
the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[Seal.]  James  Jack,  Notary  Public. 



I,  Lovina  Walker,  hereby  certify  that  while  I  was  living 
with  Aunt  Emma  Smith,  in  Fulton  City,  Fulton  Co.,  Illinois,  in 
the  year  1846,  that  she  told  me  that  she,  Emma  Smith,  was 
present  and  witnessed  the  marrying  or  sealing  of  Eliza  Partridge, 
Emily  Partridge,  Maria  Lawrence  and  Sarah  Lawrence  to  her 
husband,  Joseph  Smith,  and  that  she  gave  her  consent  thereto. 

Lovina  Walker. 

We  hereby  witness  that  Lovina  Walker  made  and  signed 
the  above  statement  on  this  i6th  day  of  June,  A.D.  1869,  at 
Salt  Lake  City,  S.  L.  County,  Utah  Territory,  of  her  own  free 
will  and  record. 

Hyrum   S.  Walker, 
Sarah   E.   Smith, 
Joseph   F.    Smith. 


Territory  of  Utah 

County  of  Salt  Lake.'^ 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  nineteenth  day  of  June,  A.D. 
1869,  personally  appeared  before  me  Elias  Smith,  Probate  Judge 
for  said  county,  Sarah  Ann  Kimball,  who  was  by  me  sworn 
in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  her  oath  saith  that  on  the  twenty- 
seventh  day  of  July,  A.D.  1842,  at  the  city  of  Nauvoo,  county 
of  Hancock,  state  of  Illinois,  she  was  married  or  sealed  to  Joseph 
Smith,  President  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day 
Saints,  by  Newell  K.  Whitney,  Presiding  Bishop  of  said  Church, 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  same  regulating  marriage,  in  the 
presence  of  Elizabeth  Ann  Whitney  her  mother. 

Sarah   A.   Kimball. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Sarah  Ann  (Whitney) 
Kimball,  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

E.  Smith,  Probate  Judge. 


Territory  of  Utah  ) 

County  of  Salt  Lake.) 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  thirtieth  day  of  August,  A.D. 
1869,  personally  appeared  before  me,  James  Jack,  a  notary  public 
in  and  for  said  county,  Elizabeth  Ann  Whitney,  who  was  by 
me  sworn  in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  her  oath  saith  that 
on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  July,  A.D.  1842,  at  the  city  of 
Nauvoo,  county  of  Hancock,  state  of  Illinois,  she  was  present 
and  witnessed  the  marrying  or  sealing  of  her  daughter  Sarah 
Ann  Whitney  to  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  for  time  and  all  eter- 
nity, by  her  husband  Newel  K.  Whitney  then  Presiding  Bishop 
of  the  Church. 

E.  A.  Whitney. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Elizabeth  Ann  Whit- 
ney the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

James  Jack,  Notary  Public. 


Springtown,  Sept.  15,  1869. 
I,  Orson  Hyde,  do  hereby  certify  and  declare  according  to 
my  best  recollection  that  on  the  fourth  day  of  September  I 
was  married  to  Miss  Marinda  N.  Johnson,  in  Kirtland,  Ohio,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  1834,  and  in  the  month  of  February  or 
March,  1843,  I  was  married  to  Miss  Martha  R.  Browitt,  by  Joseph 
Smith,  the  martyred  prophet,  and  by  him  she  was  sealed  to  me 
for  time  and  for  all  eternity  in  Nauvoo,  111.,  and  in  the  month 
of  April  of  the  same  year,  1843,  I  was  married  by  the  same 
person  to  Mrs.  Mary  Ann  Price,  and  by  him  she  was  sealed  to 
me  for  time  and  for  all  eternity,  in  Nauvoo,  111.,  while  the 
woman  to  whom  I  was  first  married  was  yet  living,  and  gave 
her  cordial  consent  to  both  transactions,  and  was  personally 
present  to  witness  the  ceremonies, 

Orson   Hyde. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  to  before  me  this  the  15th  day  of 
September,  1869,  at  Springtown,  Sanpete  County,  U.T. 

George  Brough,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 


I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  named  George  Brough  is 
a.  justice  of  the  peace  for  the  precinct  of  Springtown  in  the 
county  of  Sanpete,  U.T.,  and  that  he  is  duly  qualified  in  accord- 
ance with  law;  in  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  official  seal  of  the  County  Court  of  Sanpete  County,  at  my 
office,  Manti  City,  this  Sept.  i6,  1869. 

[Seal.]  William  T.  Reed,  County  Clerk. 

Territory    of    Utah 

County  of  Salt  Lake.f 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  the  26th  day  of  June,  A.D.  1869, 
personally  appeared  before  me,  James  Jack,  a  notary  public  in 
and  for  said  county,  Joseph  Bates  Noble,  who  was  by  me  sworn 
in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  his  oath  saith,  that  on  the  fifth 
day  of  April,  A.D.  1841,  at  the  city  of  Nauvoo,  County  of  Han- 
cock, State  of  Illinois,  he  married  or  sealed  Louisa  Beaman  to 
Joseph  Smith,  President  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter- 
day  Saints,  according  to  the  order  of  celestial  marriage  revealed 
to  the  said  Joseph  Smith. 

Joseph  B.  Noble. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Joseph  Bates  Noble, 
the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[Seal.]  James  Jack,  Notary  Public. 


Territory  of   Utah  ) 

County  of  Salt  Lake.( 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  first  day  of  May,  A.D.  1869, 
personally  appeared  before  me,  Elias  Smith,  Probate  Judge  for 
said  county,  Rhoda  Richards,  who  was  by  me  sworn  in  due  form 
of  law  and  upon  her  oath  saith  that  on  the  twelfth  day  of 
June  A.D.  1843,  at  the  city  of  Nauvoo,  County  of  Hancock, 
State  of  Illinois,  she  was  married  or  sealed  to  Joseph  Smith, 
President  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints,  by 
Willard  Richards,  one  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  of  said  Churcli. 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  same  regulating  marriage. 

Rhoda  Richards. 


Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Rhoda  Richards,  the 
day  and  year  above  written. 

[Seal.]  Elias  Smith,  Probate  Judge. 


Mesa  City,  Arizona,  9th  March,  1904. 
President  Joseph  F.  Smith, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Brother: — 

In  reading  reports  from  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  Reed 
Smoot  case,  I  see  that  witnesses  are  subpoenaed  to  prove  that 
the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  did  not  authorize  or  practice  polyg- 
amy; and  I  do  know  that  he  did  teach  plural  marriage,  and  that 
he  did  give  to  me  a  plural  wife  who  is  still  living  with  me,  and 
that  I  saw  one  of  my  sisters  married  to  him.  *  *  * 

And  I  do  know  that  at  his  Mansion  House  was  living 
Mariah  and  Sarah  Lawrence  and  one  of  Cornelius  P.  Lott's 
daughters  as  his  plural  wives  with  the  full  knowledge  of  his 
wife,  Emma,  of  the  married  relations  to  him. 

At  that  time  I  was  his  legal  business  agent  at  Macedonia 
or  Ramtis,  and  was  familiar  with  his  family  pr  domestic  af- 
fairs; and  occupying,  as  I  did,  the  family  mansion  often  in  a 
business  way  with  Emma,  the  Prophet's  first  wife,  who  at  no 
time  did  ever  in  my  hearing  deny  the  plural  character  of  her 
husband's  family. 

And  now  with  this  and  much  more  knowledge  relating  to 
this  subject,  could  my  evidence  before  the  Senate  Committee  be 
of  any  real  value  to  the  cause  of  truth?  If  so,  although  too  in- 
firm to  travel  alone  I  would  willingly  try  to  be  there,  if  accord- 
ing to  your  counsel  and  wish. 

Loyal  to  the  truth,  I  am, 

Always  brother, 

B.  F.  Johnson. 


The  following  letter  was  written  by  Elder  William  Clay- 
ton who  wrote  the  revelation  known  as  section  132  in  the  Book 


of   Doctrine    and    Covenants,    at    the    direction    of    the    Prophet 
Joseph  Smith,  July  12,  1843.* 

Salt  Lake  City,  Nov,    11,    1871. 
Madison  M.  Scott,  Esq. 
Dear  Sir: 

Your  letter  of  23rd  o£  June  last,  was  received  by  due  course  of  mail, 
but  ovi^ing  to  my  being  so  very  closely  confined  with  public  duties,  which 
has  almost  destroyed  my  health,  I  have  not  answered  your  letter  so 
prompdy  as  is  my  practice.  My  health  is  yet  very  poor,  but  I  have  resigned 
the  office  which  was  bearing  so  heavy  upon  me,  and  am  in  hopes  to  regain 
my  usual  sound  health. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  subject  matter  of  your  letter,  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  principal  topic  is  what  is  commonly  called  polygamy,  but  which 
I  prefer  to  call  celestial  marriage.  As  to  young  Joseph  saying  that  the 
Church  here  have  apostatized;  that  we  have  introduced  polygamy,  deny- 
ing bitterly  that  his  father  ever  had  a  revelation  on  the  subject,  that  is 
all  ■  mere  bosh !  7  believe  he  knows  better,  and  I  have  often  felt  sorry  to 
learn  that  the  sons  of  the  Prophet  should  spend  their  time  in  contending 
against  a  pure  and  holy  principle  which  their  father's  blood  was  shed  to 
establish.  They  will  have  a  heavy  atonement  to  make  when  they  meet  their 
father  in  the  next  world.  They  are  in  the  hands  of  God,  and  my  respect 
for  their  father  will  not  permit  me  to  say  much  about  the  wicked  course 
of  his  sons. 

Now,  I  -say  to  you,  as  I  am  ready  to  testify  to  all  the  world,  and  on 
which  testimony  I  am  most  willing  to  meet  all  the  hatter-day  Saints  and  all 
apostates,  in  time  and  through  all  eternity,  I  did  write  the  revelations  on 
celestial  marriage  given  through  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  on  the  12th  of 
July,  1843. 

When  the  revelation  was  written  there  was  no  one  present  except  the 
Prophet  Joseph,  his  brother  Hyrum  and  myself.  It  was  written  in  the 
small  office  upstairs  in  the  rear  of  the  brick  store  which  stood  on  the  banks 
of  the  Mississippi  river.  It  took  some  three  hours  to  write  it.  Joseph  dic- 
tated sentence  by  sentence,  and  I  wrote  it  as  he  dictated.  After  the  whole 
was  -written  Joseph  requested  me  to  read  it  slowly  and  carefully,  which 
I  did,  and  he  then  pronounced  it  correct.  The  same  night  a  copy  was 
taken  by  Bishop  Whitney,  which  copy  is  now  here  (in  the  Historian's 
office)  and  which  I  know  and  testify  is  corr-ect.  The  original  was  de- 
stroyed by  Emma  Smith. 

I  again  testify  that  the  revelation  on  polygamy  was  given  through  the 
prophet  Joseph  on  the  12th  July,  1843;  and  that  the  Prophet  Joseph  both 
taught  and  practiced  polygamy  I  do  positively  know,  and  bear  testimony 
to  the  fact.  In  April,  1843,  he  sealed  to  me  my  second  wife,  my  first  wife 
being  then  living.  By  my  said  second  wife  I  had  two  sons  born  in  Nauvoo. 
The  first  died;  the  second  is  here  now,  and  is  married. 

*This,  however,  was  not  the  time  this  principle  was  first  made  known 
to  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  for  as  early  as  1831  the  Lord  revealed  the 
principle  of  celestial  and  plural  marriage  to  him  and  he  taught  it  to  others. 


I  had  the  honor  to  seal  one  woman*  to  Joseph  under  his  direction.  1 
could  name  ten  or  a  dozen  of  his  wives  who  are  now  living  in  this  terri- 
tory, so  that  for  any  man  to  tell  me  that  Joseph  did  not  teach  polygamy, 
he  is  losing  his  time,  for  I  know  better.  It  is  not  hearsay,  nor  opinion 
with  me,  for  I  positively  know  of  what  I  speak,  and  I  testify  to  the  truth, 
and  shall  be  willing  to  meet  all  opponents  on  the  subject  through  all 

As  to  the  Church  here  having  apostatized  that  is  all  a  mere  matter 
of  assertion,  destitute  of  truth.  President  Young  and  his  associates  are,-  and 
have  been  doing  everything  they  can  to  carry  out  the  plans  and  instruc- 
tions of  the  Prophet  Joseph,  and  so  eternity  will  prove  to  the  condemna- 
tion and  confusion  of  all  their  enemies.  Any  one  who  says  to  the  con- 
trary does  not  know  Joseph  nor  the  mission  the  Lord  gave  him  to  fulfill.  *  *  * 

Truly  yours, 

William  Clayton. 


Territory  of  Utah  | 

County  of  Salt  Lake.j 

As  many  false  statements  have  been  made  in  relation  to  the 
authorship  of  the  revelation  on  celestial  marriage,  I  deem  it  but 
justice  to  all  lovers  of  truth  for  me  to  express  what  I  know  con- 
cerning this  very  important  matter. 

On  the  22nd  day  of  July,  A.D.  1843,  Hyrum  Smith,  the 
martyred  Patriarch,  came  in  a  carriage  to  my  house  in  Nauvoo; 
he  invited  me  and  my  wife  to  take  a  ride  with  him;  accordingly, 
as  soon  as  we  could  make  ourselves  ready,  we  got  into  his  car- 
riage and  he  set  off  in  the  direction  of  Carthage.  Having  gone 
a  short  distance,  he  observed  to  us  that  his  brother  Joseph  Smith, 
the  Prophet,  had  received  a  revelation  on  marriage,  that  was 
not  for  the  public  yet,  which  he  would  rehearse  to  us,  as  he 
had  taken  pains  to  commit  it  to  memory.  He  then  commenced 
rehearsing  the  revelation  on  celestial  marriage  not  stopping  till 
he  had  gone  quite  through  with  the  matter.  After  which  he 
reviewed  that  part  pertaining  to  plurality  of  wives,  dwelling  at 
some  length  upon  the  same,  in  order  that  we  might  clearly 
understand  the  principle.  And  on  the  same  day  (July  22,  1843,) 
he  sealed  my  wife,  formerly  Martha  Jane  Knowlton,  to  me;  and 
when   I   heard  the   revelation   on   celestial    marriage   read   on   the 

*See  affidavit  of  Lucv  Walker  Smith. 


stand  in  Salt  Lake  City,  in  1852,  I  recognized  it  as  the  same  as 
that  repeated  to  me  by  Brother  Hyrum  Smith.  Not  long  after 
this  I  was  present  when  Brother  David  Fullmer  and  wife  were 
sealed  by  Brother  Hyrum  Smith,  the  martyred  Patriarch,  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  celestial  marriage.  And,  besides  the  foregoing, 
there  was  quite  enough  came  within  the  compass  of  my  observa- 
tion to  have  fully  satisfied  my  mind  that  plural  marriage  was 
practiced  in  the  city  of  Nauvoo. 

Howard  Coray. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  this   i8th  day  of  June, 
A.D.   1882. 

[Seal.]  James  Jack,   Notary  Public. 


Territory  of  Utah 

County  of  Salt  Lake/ 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  fifteenth  day  of  June,  A.D. 
1869,  personally  appeared  before  me,  James  Jack,  a  notary  public 
in  and  for  said  county,  David  Fullmer,  who  was  by  me  sworn 
in  due  form  of  law,  and  upon  his  oath  saith,  that  on  or  about 
the  i2th  day  of  August,  A.D.  1843,  while  in  meeting  with  the 
High  Council  [he  being  a  member  thereof]  in  Hyrum  Smith's 
brick  office,  in  the  City  of  Nauvoo,  County  of  Hancock,  State 
of  Illinois,  Dunbar  Wilson  made  inquiry  in  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject of  plurality  of  wives,  as  there  were  rumors  about  respecting 
it,  and  he  was  satisfied  there  was  something  in  those  rumors, 
and  he  wanted  to  know  what  it  was.  Upon  which  Hyrum  Smith 
stepped  across  the  road  to  his  residence,  and  soon  returned 
bringing  with  him  a  copy  of  the  revelation  on  celestial  mar- 
riage given  to  Joseph  Smith  July  12,  1843,  and  read  the  same 
to  the  High  Council,  and  bore  testimony  to  its  truth.  The  said 
David  Fullmer  further  saith  that,  to  the  best  of  his  memory 
and  belief,  the  following  named  persons  were  present:  Wil- 
liam Marks,  Austin  A.  Cowles,  Samuel  Bent,  George  W. 
Harris,    Dunbar    Wilson,    William    Huntington,    Levi    Jackman, 

*Similar   affidavits   by   most   of   the    members    of   this    High    Council    at 
Nauvoo  are  also  on  file. 


Aaron  Johnson,  Thomas  Grover,  David  Fullmer,  Phineas  Rich- 
ards, James  Allred  and  Leonard  Soby.  And  the  said  David 
Fullmer  further  saith  that  William  Marks,  Austin  A.  Cowles 
and  Leonard  Soby  were  the  only  persons  present  w^ho  did  not 
receive  the  testimony  of  Hyrum  Smith,  and  that  all  the  others 
did  receive  it  from  the  teachings  and  testimony  of  the  said 
Hyrum  Smith;  and  further,  that  the  copy  of  said  revelation  on 
celestial  marriage  published  in  the  Deseret  News  extra  of  Sep- 
tember 14,  A.D,  1852,  is  a  true  copy  of  the  same. 

David  Fullmer. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  David  Fullmer  the 
day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[Seal.]  James    Jack,   Notary   Public. 


Be  it  remembered  that  on  the  23rd  day  of  March,  in  the 
year  1886,  before,  Joshua  W.  Roberts,  notary  public  for  the  City 
of  Beverly,  County  of  Burlington,  State  of  New  Jersey,  Leonard 
Soby,  of  said  city,  county  and  state,  was  by  me  duly  sworn,  and 
upon  his  oath  saith: 

That  on  or  about  the  12th  day  of  August,  1843,  I  was  a 
resident  of  Nauvoo,  Hancock  County,  State  of  Illinois,  and 
being  a  member  of  the  High  Council  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints,  was  present  at  a  meeting  of  said 
council  at  the  time  herein  above  stated;  Thomas  Grover,  Alpheus 
Cutler,  David  Fullmer,  William  Huntington  and  others;  when 
Elder  Hyrum  Smith,  after  certain  explanations,  read  the  revela- 
tion on  celestial  marriage. 

I  have  read  and  examined  carefully  said  revelation,  since 
published  in  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants  of  said  Church, 
and  say  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief  it  is  the  same, 
word  for  word,  as  the  revelation  then  read  by  Hyrum   Smith. 

The  deponent  says  further,  that  the  revelation  did  not  orig- 
inate with  Brigham  Young,  as  some  persons  have  falsely  stated, 
but   was    received    by    the    Prophet    Joseph    Smith,    and    read    in 

*Leonard  Soby  was  at  first  opposed  to  this  revelation,  and  shortly 
after  the  martyrdom  he  left  the  Church.  When  this  statement  was  given 
he  was  not  a  member  of  the  Church. 


the  High  Council  by  his  authority  as  a  revelation  to  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints. 

When  read  to  this  deponent  and  said  High  Council,   I  be- 
lieved it  was  a  revelation  from  Jesus  Christ,  and  I  believe  so  now. 

Leonard   Soby. 
Subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  said  Leonard  Soby  the  day 
and  year  first  above  written. 

Joshua   W.   Roberts,   Notary   Public. 
Witnessed  by: 

James  H.  Hart, 
Samuel  Harrison. 



State  of  Utah 

County  of  Salt  Lake. 

John  W.  Rigdon,  being  duly  sworn,  says:  I  am  the  son  of 
Sidney  Rigdon,  deceased.  Was  born  at  Mentor,  in  the  State 
of  Ohio,  in  the  year  1830,  and  am  now  over  seventy-five  years 
of  age.  My  father,  Sidney  Rigdon,  joined  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  that  year,  and  was  in  1833  ordained 
to  be  Joseph  Smith's  first  counselor  which  position  he  held  up 
to  the  time  Joseph  the  Prophet  was  killed,  at  Carthage  jail, 
in  1844.  That  Joseph  Smith  and  Sidney  Rigdon  moved  from 
Kirtland,  with  their  families,  to  the  State  of  Missouri,  during  the 
winter  of  1837,  ^^^  Rigdon  did  not  reach  Far  West,  in  the  State 
of  Missouri,  until  the  last  of  April,  1838.  That  during  the 
troubles  in  Missouri,  in  the  year  1838,  Joseph  Smith,  Hyrum 
Smith,  his  brother,  Sidney  Rigdon,  Lyman  Wight  and  others, 
whose  names  I  do  not  now  remember  were  arrested  and  im- 
prisoned in  Liberty  jail,  about  forty  miles  from  the  village  of 
Far  West,  in  Caldwell  County,  Missouri,  where  they  all  re- 
mained incarcerated  for  several  months.  That  while  said  Joseph 
Smith,  Hyrum  Smith,  Sidney  Rigdon,  Lyman  Wight  and  others 
were  prisoners  in  said  Liberty  jail,  as  aforesaid  I,  with  my 
mother,  wife  of  Sidney  Rigdon,  Emma  Smith,  wife  of  said  Joseph 
Smith,  and  Joseph  Smith,  son  of  Joseph  and  Emma  Smith,  went 
to  see  the  said  prisoners  during  the  latter  part  of  the  winter  of 
1838.  We  all  went  together  in  the  same  carriage  and  came  home 


together.  We  stayed  at  Liberty  jail  with  the  prisoners  three  days 
and  then  left  for  home.  The  story  that  is  being  told  by  some 
of  the  members  of  the  Reorganized  Church,  at  Lamoni,  that 
young  Joseph  Smith,  now  president  of  the  said  Reorganized 
Church,  was  ordained  by  his  father,  Joseph  Smith,  to  be  the 
leader  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  after 
his  father's  death,  is  not  true,  for  I  know  that  no  such  ordina- 
tion took  place  while  we  were  at  Liberty  jail;  that  if  any  such 
ordination  had  taken  place  I  most  certainly  should  have  known 
it  and  remembered  it,  as  I  was  with  young  Joseph,  the  Prophet's 
son,  all  the  time  we  were  there.  If  Joseph  Smith  had  ordained 
his  son  Joseph  to  be  the  leader  of  the  Church  at  his  death,  he 
would  have  done  so  in  a  manner  that  there  could  have  been 
no  doubt  about  it.  Both  of  his  counselors  were  then  in  prison 
with  him,  namely,  Sidney  Rigdon  and  Hyrum  Smith,  and  it 
would  have  been  in  order  for  the  prophet  to  have  called  upon 
them  to  assist  him  in  such  an  ordination  had  it  taken  place, 
and  a  record  of  the  same  made  in  the  Church  books,  so  that 
all  members  of  the  Church  might  have  known  that  such  an 
ordination  had  taken  place.  But  nothing  of  the  kind  appears 
in  the  Church  books.  My  father  and  mother  lived  a  good  many 
years  after  the  incarceration  at  Liberty  jail,  and  I,  who  lived 
near  my  father,  never  heard  my  father  or  my  mother  mention 
that  such  an  ordination  ever  took  place  in  Liberty  jail;  and  as  I 
know  myself  that  no  such  ordination  took  place  in  Liberty  jail, 
and  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  claimed  that  an  ordination  of  this 
character  was  bestowed  at  any  other  place,  therefore  I  deny  it 
as  an  untruth  and  a  story  gotten  up  by  the  Reorganized  Church 
for  eflect. 

Besides  all  this,  if  Joseph  Smith,  the  President  of  the  Re- 
organized Church  was  ordained  while  in  Liberty  jail,  why  did 
he,  sixteen  years  after  his  father's  death,  receive  an  ordination 
under  the  hands  of  William  Marks,  William  W.  Blair,  and 
Zenas  H.  Gurley?'  Would  it  not  seem  that  one  ordination 
(and  that  too,  said  to  have  been  by  his  own  father,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Church)  should  have  been  sufficient.-  But  lurther 
Wm.  Marks,  Wm.  W.  Blair  and  Zenas  H.  Gurley  had  all  been 
excommunicated  from  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day 
Saints  (excepting  William  W.  Blair,  who  never  belonged  to  it) 


before  they  "ordained"  young  Joseph  to  be  President  of  the 
Reorganized  Church,  and  therefore  they  did  not  have  the  au- 
thority to  ordain  him.  The  whole  story  of  his  being  ordained  by 
anyone  having  authority  to  do  so  is  too  preposterous  to  be  enter- 
tained for  a  single  moment,  and  should  be  rejected  by  all  who 
hear  such  a  story  mentioned. 

As  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  being  intro- 
duced by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  deponent  further  says: 
Joseph  Smith  was  absolute  so  far  as  spiritual  figures  were  con- 
cerned, and  no  man  would  have  dared  to  introduce  the  doctrine 
of  polygamy  or  any  other  new  doctrine  into  the  "Mormon" 
Church  at  the  city  of  Nauvoo  during  the  years  1843  and  1844, 
or  at  any  other  place  or  time,  without  first  obtaining  Joseph 
Smith's  consent.  If  anyone  had  dared  to  have  done  such  a  thing 
he  would  have  been  brought  before  the  High  Council  and  tried, 
and  if  proven  against  him,  he  would  have  been  excommunicated 
from  the  Churchy  and  that  would  have  ended  polygamy  forever, 
and  would  also  have  ended  the  man  who  had  dared  to  introduce 
such  a  doctrine  without  the  consent  of  the  Prophet  Joseph. 

And  deponent  further  says:  Joseph  the  Prophet,  at  the 
City  of  Nauvoo,  Illinois,  some  time  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
year  1843,  or  the  first  part  of  the  year  1844,  made  a  proposition 
to  my  sister,  Nancy  Rigdon,  to.  become  his  wife.  It  happened 
in  this  way:  Nancy  had  gone  to  Church,  meeting  being  held 
in  a  grove  near  the  temple  lot  on  which  the  "Mormons"  were 
then  erecting  a  temple,  an  old  lady  friend  who  lived  alone  in- 
vited her  to  go  home  with  her,  which  Nancy  did.  When  they 
got  to  the  house  and  had  taken  their  bonnets  of?,  the  old 
lady  began  to  talk  to  her  about  the  new  doctrine  of  polygamy 
which  was  then  being  taught,  telling  Nancy,  during  the  con- 
versation, that  it  was  a  surprise  to  her  when  she  first  heard  it, 
but  that  she  had  since  come  to  believe  it  to  be  true.  While  they 
were  talking  Joseph  Smith  the  Prophet  came  into  the  house, 
and  joined  them,  and  the  old  lady  immediately  left  the  room. 
It  was  then  that  Joseph  made  the  proposal  of  marriage  to  my 
sister.  Nancy  flatly  refused  him,  saying  if  she  ever  got  married 
she  would  marry  a  single  man  or  none  at  all,  and  thereupon 
took  her  bonnet  and  went  home,  leaving  Joseph  at  the  old  lady's 
house.  Nancy  told   father  and   mc^her  of  it.  The   story   got  cut 


and  it  became  the  talk  of  the  town  that  Joseph  had  made  a  propo- 
sition to  Nancy  Rigdon  to  become  his  wife,  and  that  she  re- 
fused him.  A  few  days  after  the  occurrence  Joseph  Smith 
came  to  my  father's  house  and  talked  the  matter  over  with 
the  family,  my  sister,  Mrs.  Athalia  Robinson  also  being  present, 
who  is  now  alive.  The  feelings  manifested  by  our  family  on 
this  occasion  were  anything  but  brotherly  or  sisterly,  more  es- 
pecially on  the  part  of  Nancy,  as  she  felt  that  she  had  been 
insulted.  A  day  or  two  later  Joseph  Smith  returned  to  my  father's 
house,  when  matters  were  satisfactorily  adjusted  between  them, 
and  there  the  matter  ended.  After  that  Joseph  Smith  sent  my 
father  to  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  to  take  charge  of  a  little  church  that  was 
there,  and  Ebenezer  Robinson,  who  was  then  the  Church  printer, 
or  at  least  had  been  such,  as  he  was  the  printer  of  the  paper 
in  Kirdand,  Ohio,  and  a  printer  by  trade,  was  to  go  with  him 
to  print  a  paper  there,  and  nine  days  before  Joseph  Smith  was 
shot  at  Carthage  we  started,  reaching  Pittsburgh  the  day  before 
he  was  killed. 

Deponent  further  says:  I  have  in  my  possession  a  paper 
called  the  Nauvoo  Expositor,  bearing  date,  Nauvoo,  Illinois, 
Friday,  June  7th,  1844,  which  said  paper's  printing  plant  was 
destroyed  by  the  City  Council  at  Nauvoo  a  night  or  two  after 
that  issue.  There  never  was  but  one  issue  of  this  paper.  Joseph 
Smith  the  Prophet  was  then  Mayor  of  the  City  of  Nauvoo. 
In  the  afternoon  of  the  day  on  which  the  printing  plant  was 
destroyed,  Henry  Phelps,  a  son  of  W.  W.  Phelps,  came  down 
Main  Street  selling  this  paper,  the  Nauvoo  Exposito-r,  and  every- 
one who  could  raise  five  cents  bought  a  copy.  In  that  paper  the 
three  following  affidavits  appeared,  which  I   reproduce  herewith. 


I  hereby  certify  that  Hyrum  Smith  did  (in  his  office)  read  to  me  a 
certain  written  document  which  he  said  was  a  revelation  from  God.  He 
said  that  he  was  with  Joseph  when  it  was  received.  He  afterwards  gave 
me  the  document  to  read  and  I  took  it  to  my  house  and  read  it  and 
showed  it  to  my  wife  and  returned  it  the  next  day.  The  revelati'>n  (so 
called)  authorized  certain  men  to  have  more  wives  than  one  at  a  ;  c  in 
this  world  and  in  the  world  to  conic.  It  said  this  was  the  law,  and  com- 
manded Joseph  to  enter  into  the  law.  And  also  that  he  should  administer 
to  others.  Several  other  items  were  in  the  revelation,  vuiipnrting  the  above 
doctrines.  Wm.   Law. 


State  of  Illinois, 

Hancock  County. 

I,  Robert  D.  Foster,  certify  that  the  above  certificate  was  sworn  to 
txfore  me  as  true  in  substance,  this   fourth   day  of  May,   A.D.    1844. 

Robert  D.  Foster,  J.   P. 

I  certify  that  I  read  the  revelation  referred  to  in  the  above  afiEdavit 
of  my  husband.  It  sustained  in  strong  terms  the  doctrine  of  more  wives 
than  one  at  a  time  in  this  world  and  in  the  next.  It  authorized  some  to 
have  to  the  number  of  ten,  and  set  forth  that  those  women  who  would 
not  allow  their  husbands  to  have  more  wives  than  one  should  be  under 
condemnation  before  God.  Jane  Law. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  this  4th  day  of  May,  A.D.   1844. 

Robert  D.  Foster,  J.  P. 

To  all   whom  it  may  concern: 

Forasmuch  as  the  public  mind  hath  been  much  agitated  by  a  course 
of  procedure  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  by  a  num- 
ber of  persons  declaring  against  certain  doctrines  and  practices  therein 
(among  whom  I  am  one)  it  is  but  meet  that  I  should  give  my  reasons  at 
least  in  part  as  a  cause  that  hath  led  me  to  declare  myself.  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  summer  of  1843,  the  Patriarch  Hyrum  Smith  did  in  the  High 
Council,  of  which  I  was  a  member,  introduce  what  he  said  was  a  revela- 
tion given  through  the  Prophet,  that  the  said  Hyrum  Smith  did  essay  to 
read  the  said  revelation  in  the  said  council;  that  according  to  his  reading 
there  was  contained  the  following  doctrines:  ist.  The  sealing  up  of  per- 
sons to  eternal  life,  against  all  sins  save  that  of  shedding  innocent  blood 
or  of  consenting  thereto;  2nd.  The  doctrine  of  plurality  of  wives  or  mar- 
rying virgins;  that  David  and  Solomon  had  many  wives,  yet  in  this  they 
sinned  not,  save  in  the  matter  of  Uriah.  This  revelation  with  others,  evi- 
dence that  the  aforesaid  heresies  were  taught  and  practiced  in  the  Church, 
determined  me  to  leave  the  office  of  first  counselor  to  the  President  of  the 
Church  at  Nauvoo,  inasmuch  as  I  dared  not  teach  or  administer  such  laws. 
And  further  deponent  saith  not. 

Austin   Cowles. 
State  of  Illinois, 

Hancock  County. 

To  all  whom  it  may  concern:  I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  certificate 
was  sworn  and  subscribed  before   me,   this   fourth  day  of  May,    1844. 

Robert  D.  Foster,   J.   P. 
John   W.   Rigdon. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  28th  day  of  July,   1905. 

[Seal.]  James   Jack,   Notary   Public. 



The  following  confirmation  of  John  W.  Rigdon's  affidavit  is  copied 
from  the  Deseret  News  of  Saturday,  August  12,   1905: 

Bunkerville,  Lincoln  County,  Nev.,  August  4,  1905: — Seeing  the  testi- 
mony of  J.  W.  Rigdon  in  the  semi- weekly  News  of  July  31,  and  being 
much  interested  in  the  subject,  and  knowing  that  there  lived  in  this  place 
a  man  that  was  quite  familiar  with  the  early  scenes  of  church  history, 
especially  those  in  and  about  Far  West,  Missouri,  and  having  heard  him 
say  that  he  had  many  times  visited  his  father  and  the  Prophet  Joseph, 
while  they  were  incarcerated  in  Liberty  jail,  I  went  and  interviewed 
Orange  L.  Wight  (eldest  son  of  former  Apostle  Lyman  Wight),  who  is 
now  82  years  old  and  resides  with  his  daughter,  Sister  Harriet  M.  Earl. 
Brother  Wight  is  quite  feeble  in  body,  but  his  mind  seems  to  be  as  bright 
as  ever. 

I  found  Brother  Wight  in  his  usual  good  humor,  and  seemed  quite 
willing  to  talk,  in  fact,  was  pleased  to  do  so.  "Elder  Wight,"  said  I, 
"are  you  willing  to  make  a  statement  for  publication  in  regard  to  what 
you  know  about  Joseph  Smith,  son  of  the  Prophet  Joseph,  being  or- 
dained while  in  Liberty  jail  to  lead  the  Church?"  "Certainly  I  am." 
"Then,"  said  I,  "just  write  me  out  a  brief  statement  covering  those  points, 
and  I  will  give  it  in  your  own  words."  Following  is  Brother  Wight's 

"In  regard  to  the  statement  of  John  W.  Rigdon,  I  endorse  it  in  every 
point.  Brother  John  W.  Rigdon  speaks  of  being  in  Liberty  prison  when 
the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  Sidney  Rigdon,  Hyrum  Smith,  Lyman  Wight, 
and  others  were  there  (the  others  were  Caleb  Baldwin  and  Alexander 
McRae).  I  also  visited  the  prisoners  at  or  about  the  same  time,  and  slept 
with  them  many  times  at  different  periods,  and  I  cannot  recollect  of  ever 
hearing  the  subject  of  an  ordination  mentioned. 

"My  father,  Lyman  Wight,  nor  my  mother,  never  alluded  to  it  during 
their  lifetime  in  my  presence;  so  I  take  it  for  granted  that  Joseph,  the  son 
of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  was  not  ordained  to  fill  the  place  of  his 
father,  in  the  Liberty  jail.  I  was  born  in  the  State  of  New  York,  Novem- 
ber 29,  1823,  hence  am  about  seven  years  older  than  Brother  John  W.  Rig- 
don. And  if  an  ordination  of  Young  Joseph  had  occurred  in  the  prison,  I 
would  likely  have  heard  it,  and  would  certainly  recollect  it. 

"Previous  to  this,"  while  I  was  several  years  younger,  the  Twelve 
Apostles  were  organized  and  commissioned  to  assist  in  leading  and 
governing  the  Church.  I  can  recollect  every  detail  distinctly.  My  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Prophet  was  from  the  year  1830  to  his  martyrdom,  and  I 
can  truly  say  he  was  a  Prophet  of  God,  and  was  appointed  to  the  divine 
mission  to  organize  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  in  this 
last  dispensation. 

"As  to  the  Prophet's  believing  and  practicing  polygamy,  I  have  as 
near   a    certain   knowledge    of   the    fact,    I    may    say,    as    any    man    living.    I 


was  well  acquainted  with   most  or  all   of  his  wives,   and   talked   with   them 
on  the   subject,  at  the  same  time  my  wife  also  talked   with   them. 

"If  there  is  anything  further  that  is  necessary  for  me  to  communi- 
cate in  regard  to  my  recollection,  I  will  willingly  do  so. 


"Orange  L.  Wight." 

Further  talk  with  Brother  Wight  brought  out  the  follow- 
ing facts:  He  was  baptized  into  the  Church  in  the  spring  of 
1832;  was  with  the  Church  through  all  their  troubles  in  the 
State  of  Missouri.  Brother  Wight  filled  a  thirteen  months' 
mission  in  the  State  of  Virginia  in  company  with  Jedediah  M. 
Grant  and  others;  was  in  Nauvoo  at  the  time  the  Prophet  was 
captured  at  Dixon,  111.,  and  was  one  of  those  who  went  up 
the  Illinois  river  on  the  steamer  "Maid  of  Iowa,"  to  assist  in 
rescuing  the  Prophet.  Joseph  I.  Earl. 


State  of  Utah  1^ 

County  of  Salt  Lake.) 

Bathsheba  W.  Smith,  being  first  duly  sworn  on  oath,  de- 
poses and  says: 

I  was  a  resident  of  Nauvoo,  State  of  Ilhnois,  from  1840 
to  1846.  I  was  married  to  George  A.  Smith  July  25,  1841, 
Elder  Don  Carlos  Smith  performing  the  ceremony.  Near  the 
close  of  the  year  1843,  or  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  1844,  I 
received  the  ordinance  of  anointing  in  a  room  in  Sister  Emma 
Smith's  house  in  Nauvoo,  and  the  same  day,  in  company  with 
my  husband,  I  received  my  endowment  in  the  upper  room  over 
the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith's  store.  The  endowments  were  given 
under  the  direction  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  who  afterwards 
gave  us  lectures  or  instructions  in  regard  to  the  endowment 
ceremonies.  There  has  been  no  change,  to  my  certain  knowl- 
edge, in  these  ceremonies.  They  are  the  same  today  as  they  were 
then.  A  short  time  after  I  received  my  anointing,  I  was  sealed 
to  my  husband,  George  A.  Smith,  for  time  and  eternity,  by 
President  Brigham  Young,  in  the  latter's  house,  according  to  the 
plan  taught,  to  my  knowledge,  by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith. 
When  I  was  married  in  1841,  I  was  married  for  time,  and  not 
for  eternity. 


At  the  time  I  was  anointed  in  Sister  Emma  Smith's  house, 
she  (Emma  Smith)  said  in  my  presence,  to  me  and  to  others 
who  were  present  upon  that  occasion,  "Your  husbands  are  going 
to  take  more  wives,  and  unless  you  consent  to  it,  you  must  put 
your  foot  down  and  keep  it  there."  Much  more  was  said  in 
regard  to  plural  marriage  at  that  time  by  Sister  Emma  Smith, 
who  seemed  opposed  to  the  principle. 

In  the  year  1840,  at  a  meeting  held  in  Nauvoo,  at  which  I 
was  present,  I  heard  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  say  that  the 
ancient  order  would  be  restored  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Abra- 
ham. In  the  year  1844,  a  short  time  before  the  death  of  the 
Prophet  Joseph  Smith,  it  was  my  privilege  to  attend  a  regular 
prayer  circle  in  the  upper  room  over  the  Prophet's  store.  There 
were  present  at  this  meeting  most  of  the  Twelve  Aposdes, 
their  wives,  and  a  number  of  other  prominent  brethren  and 
their  wives.  On  that  occasion  the  Prophet  arose  and  spoke  at 
great  length,  and  during  his  remarks  I  heard  him  say  that  he 
had  conferred  on  the  heads  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  all  the  keys 
and  powers  pertaining  to  the  Priesthood,  and  that  upon  the  heads 
of  the  Twelve  Aposdes  the  burden  of  the  Kingdom  rested,  and 
that  they  would  have  to  carry  it. 

It  has  been,  and  is,  necessary  for  me  to  make  this  state- 
ment, a's  contrary  reports  have  been  circulated  as  coming  from 
me.  Any  statements  purporting  to  come  from  me  that  have  been 
made,  or  that  may  be  made  by  any  party  or  parties,  in  opposi- 
tion or  conficting  with  this  sworn  statement,  are  false,  as  I  have 
never,  to  my  knowledge,  deviated  one  iota  from  this  statement. 

Bathsheba  W.  Smith. 

Signed  in  the  presence  of 
Joseph  F.  Smith,  Jr., 
B.  Morris  Young. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  iqth  day  of  No- 
vember, 1903. 

[Seal.]  Martin    S.   Lindsay,   Notary   Public. 



The  ministers  o£  the  "Reorganized"  Church,  or  the  "New 
Organization,"  as  it  was  first  called,*  declare  that  the  Church 
at  the  death  of  the  Prophet  Joseph  and  Patriarch  Hyrum  Smith, 
was  badly  divided,  its  members  scattered  to  the  four  winds,  and 
that  the  Church  was  rejected  with  its  dead.  They  also  claim  that 
the  "Reorganization"  is  composed  of  the  faithful  who  did  "not 
bow  the  knee  to  Baal,"  but  remained  true  to  the  "original 
faith"  as  revealed  and  practiced  by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith. 
In  the  words  of  their  president:  "The  individuals  who  kept 
this  covenant  (the  new  and  everlasting  covenant)  were  accepted 
of  Him  and  were  not  rejected,  nor  their  standing  before  God 
put  in  jeopardy  by  the  departure  of  others  from  the  faith. 
Whatever  the  office  in  the  priesthood  each  held,  under  the  ordi- 
nations ordered  by  the  call  of  God  and  vote  of  the  Church, 
would  remain  valid.  They  could  as  elders,  priests,  etc.,  pursut 
the  duties  of  warning,  expounding,  and  inviting  all  to  come  to 
Christ,  and  by  command  of  God  could  build  up  the  Church 
from  any  single  branch,  which,  like  themselves,  had  not  bowed 
the  knee  to  Baal,  or  departed  from  the  faith  of  the  Church  as 
found  in  the  standard  works  of  the  body  at  the  death  of  Joseph 
and  Hyrum  Smith."t 

It  is  strongly  implied  in  this  quotation  from  the  writings 
of  the  president  of  the  "Reorganization"  that  all  those  who 
followed  President  Brigham  Young  and  the  Twelve  Aposdes, 
lost  their  Priesthood  and  standing  before  the  Lord,  and  that 
the  founders  of  the  "New  Organization"  and  their  followers 
were  the  only  ones  who  remained  true  and  steadfast  to  the 
Truth.  The  evidence  in  this  regard  is  against  them.  The 
truth  is  that  the  founders  of  the  "Reorganized"  church  were 
the  ones  who  followed  every  will-o-the-wisp,  bowed  the  knee  to 

*  Saints'   Herald,   Vol.    one. 

tSee   article   in   Era,   Vol.    7,   No.    11,    entitled,    "The    Church    Rejected 


Baal  and  departed  from  the  faith,  while  the  Twelve  and  the 
Saints  on  the  other  hand,  pursued  an  even  course  and  were 
steadfast  under  all  trials  and  difficulties  even  to  the  end. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  Church  was  broken,  scattered  and 
rejected  following  the  martyrdom  and  that  the  "Reorganiza- 
tion" is  a  portion  of  the  original  church."  Their  organization 
did  not  come  into  existence  until  some  sixteen  years  after  the 
death  of  the  Prophet  and  Patriarch  and  was  an  outgrowth  of 
the  movement  under  James  J.  Strang. 

There  was  a  movement  on  foot  to  divide  the  Church,  fol- 
lowing the  assassination  of  the  Prophet  and  Patriarch,  but  its 
range  was  not  as  extensive  as  has  generally  been  supposed.  The 
chief  actors  in  this  movement  were  Sidney  Rigdon,  James  J. 
Strang  and  William  Smith,  each  of  whom  aspired  to  lead  the 
Church.  Mr.  Rigdon  based  his  claim  to  the  presidency  on  the 
fact  that  he  had  been  the  first  counselor  to  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith,  and  therefore  by  right  should  be  the  "guardian"  of  the 
Church.  His  claim  was  in  conhict  with  the  position  of  the 
Church  and  the  teachings  of  the  Prophet.  He  laid  his  case  be- 
fore the  conference  of  the  Church  August  8,  1844,  and  his 
claim  was  rejected  by  the  Saints  almost  unanimously.  At  the 
same  conference  the  Twelve  Apostles  were  sustained  as  the 
presiding  quorum  of  the  Church.  Mr.  Strang's  claim  to  the 
presidency  was  based  on  his  statement  that  the  Prophet  had 
appointed  him  as  his  successor  by  letter,  a  few  days  before  the 
martyrdom.  William  Smith  claimed  the  right  of  presidency  by 
virtue  of  being  the  brother  of  the  Prophet. 

Each  of  these  men  gathered  around  him  a  few  followers, 
principally  of  that  class  of  restless,  erratic  individuals,  who  never 
remain  contented  very  long  in  any  one  place  or  under  any  cir- 
cumstances; but  none  of  them  gathered  many  followers.  Their 
organizations  barely  existed  for  a  few  years  and  then  disap- 
peared; the  fragments  becoming  the  nucleus  of  the  "Reorgani- 

The  movement  which  resulted  in  the  bringing  forth  of 
the  "Reorganized"  church,  was  of  more  recent  date  and  was  due 
principally  to  the  efforts  of  two  men,  viz.,  Jason  W.  Briggs  and 
Zenas  H.  Gurley.  Mr.  Briggs  was  born  June  25,  1821,  at 
Pompey,    Oneida    County,    New    York.    He    joined    the    Church 


June  6,  1 84 1,  and  members  of  the  "Reorganization"  declare 
that  he  was  ordained  an  Elder  in  1842.  His  home  was  in 
Beloit,  Wisconsin,  from  1842  to  1854.  After  the  death  of  the 
Prophet,  Mr.  Briggs  sustained  the  Twelve  Aposdes  and  the 
Church  and  was  apparently  true  to  them  until  the  exodus  in 
1846.  At  that  time  he  lost  heart,  turned  from  the  Church  in 
its  darkest  hour  and  sought  the  favor  of  the  world.  Some  time 
subsequent  to  this  he  joined  the  movement  under  James  J.  Strang. 
In  Strang's  organization  he  did  missionary  work,  received  honors 
and  organized  a  branch.  In  1850  he  renounced  Mr,  Strang  and 
joined  with  William  Smith,  in  the  latter  organization  he  was 
"ordained"  an  "aposde."  He  soon  tired  of  William  Smith,  and 
in  1 85 1  joined  with  Zenas  H.  Gurley  who  was  at  that  time  a 
follower  of  James  J.  Strang.  These  two  men  then  organized  a 
church  of  their  own  which  afterwards  was  known  as  the  "Reor- 
ganized" church.  In  1886  Jason  W.  Briggs  withdrew  from  this 
organization  of  his  own  begetting,  declaring  that  it  was  not  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

Zenas  H.  Gurley  was  just  as  unstable  as  Mr.  Briggs.  He 
was  born  at  Bridgewater,  New  York,  May  29,  1801,  joined 
the  Churchy  in  April,  1838,  and  moved  to  Far  West,  from 
whence  he  was  driven  with  the  Saints  in  the  expulsion  of 
1838-39.  After  this  expulsion  he  settled  in  Nauvoo,  where,  in 
1844,  he  was  ordained  a  Seventy,*  under  the  direction  of  Presi- 
dent Joseph  Young,  and  on  the  6th  day  of  April,  1845,  he  was 
ordained  senior  president  of  the  twenty-first  quorum  of  Seventy. 
He  sustained  the  Twelve  and  followed  their  teachings  and  re- 
mained with  the  Church  until  February,  1846,  (the  month  of  the 
exodus)  when  he  also  left  the  Church  and  shordy  afterwards 
joined  with  James  J.  Strang.  Mr.  Gurley  was  endowed  in  the 
Nauvoo  Temple  with  his  wife  January  6,  1846,  and  of  that  event 
the  record  of  Seventies  states  under  date  of  January  10,  1846: 

President  Zenas  H.  Gurley  arose  and  said  that  the  Presidents  of  the 
quorum  (21st)  had  received  their  endowment.  He  observed  that  it  was 
remarkable   for   the   unusual    outpouring   of    the    Holy    Spirit. — Page    29. 

*The  "Reorganized"  Church  History  states  that  Z.  H,  Gurley  was 
ordained  a  Seventy  in  Far  West  in  1838.  This  is  an  error,  they  have  no 
original  record  of  such  an  ordination.  The  original  records  of  the  Seven- 
ties in  the  Historian's  Office,  Salt  Lake  City,  give  his  ordination .  as  stated 


Again  speaking  of  the  authorities  of  the  Church  he  said: 

He  remembered  forcibly  the  sayings  of  the  First  Presidents  of  Se~Ventv. 
that  we  should  so  live  that  no  charge  can  be  brought  against  us.  A  few 
years  ago  the  men  in  high  standing  in  this  Church  were  as  litde  as  we  are. 
They  obtained  their  exaltation  by  patient  submission  to  right,  and  minding 
their  own  business. — Page  29. 

On  January  25th,  1846,  he  said: 

The  Saints  who  have  passed  through  the  trials  of  the  Church  were 
generally  rooted  and  grounded  in  love  and  have  a  witness  in  their  own 
hearts  or  they   would   not  have  remained. — ^Page   33. 

Within  a  very  few  days  of  this  time  Zenas  H.  Gurley  de- 
serted the  Church  because  he  was  unable  to  face  the  trials  and 
hardships  the  Saints  were  forced  to  undergo.  The  "Mormon" 
people  were  journeying  in  a  strange  land,  the  prospects  be- 
fore them  were  dark  and  some  of  the  members  became  faint- 
hearted and  were  unable  to  endure  to  the  end.  Of  this  num- 
ber Jason  W,  Briggs  and  Zenas  H.  Gurley  were  two  who  turned 
back  and  sought  refuge  in  the  apostate  organization  of  James 
J.  Strang.  Indeed  it  required  a  strong  heart  and  a  firm-rooted 
faith  for  men  and  women  to  give  up  all  earthly  comforts  and 
undertake  a  journey  of  that  kind.  Death  stared  the  Saints  in 
the  face,  they  were  poorly  clothed,  without  shelter,  save  their 
ragged  tents  that  would  not  shed  the  rain,  and  almost  destitute 
of  food;  yet  with  the  exception  of  the  few  who  sought  the 
"flesh-pots  of  Egypt,"  they  patiently  and  determinedly  pursued 
their  way  until  crowned  with  the  victory.  The  opinion  of  the 
world  at  that  time  was  that  the  exodus  meant  the  end  of 
"Mormonism,"  and  that  the  Latter-day  Saints  had  gone  to  their 
destruction;  for  without  the  necessary  means  to  support  life,  and 
isolated  as  they  were  from  the  rest  of  civilization,  they  must 
surely  perish  in  the  barren  and  distant  V/est.  Such,  too,  would 
doubtless  have  been  the  case  had  not  the  protecting  hand  of 
Jehovah  guided  them.  Is  it  any  wonder  under  such  trying  con- 
ditions that  the  hearts  of  those  weak  in  the  faith  should  fail 

In  1849  Mr.  Gurley  filled  a  mission  for  Mr.  Strang  nnd 
made  a  number  of  converts  to  that  faith.  In  1850  he  organ- 
ized the  "Yellowstone  branch,"  for  the  Strangite  church.  In 
1852   he  rejected   the   claim   of   Mr.   Strang  and   joined   with   Mr, 


Jason  W.  Briggs,  and  these  two  men  united  their  respective 
Strangite  branches,  those  of  Yellowstone  and  Beloit,  and  or- 
ganized themselves  into  a  new  religious  movement  known  today 
as  the  "Reorganized"  church.  In  1853,  the  leaders  of  this  move- 
ment called  a  number  of  men  to  the  ministry,  "ordained"  seven 
"aposdes"  and  began  a  proselyting  movement.  For  several  years 
they  tried  to  get  "young  Joseph,"  the  son  of  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith,  who  had  never  affiliated  with  the  Saints  since  the  exodus 
from  Nauvoo,  to  join  them  and  become  their  president.  In  this 
they  failed,  but  were  diligent  and  finally,  through  their  continued 
efforts  and  the  persuasion  of  his  mother,  he  accepted  that  posi- 
tion in  t86o,  was  "ordained"  president  of  their  church  by  Wil- 
liam Marks,  Zenas  H.  Gurley,  and  William  W.  Blair,  and  has 
continued  in  that  position  ever  since. 

Mr.  Gurley  remained  with  this  movement  till  his  death, 
but  his  familv,  together  with  Jason  W.  Briggs,  voluntarily  with- 
drew in  1886. 

In  1852,  when  Jason  W.  Briggs  and  Zenas  H.  Gurley  com- 
bined their  Strangite  forces  the  membership  was  about  one 
hundred  souls,  most  of  whom  were  converts  made  for  Mr. 
Strang.  In  i860,  when  "young  Joseph"  assumed  the  leadership, 
the  membership  was  three  hundred  souls,  most  of  whom  were 
converts  that  had  never  belonged  to  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Latter-day  Saints. 

Of  the  members  of  the  Church  who  were  in  fellowship  in 
1844-46,  the  "Reorganization"  has  received  no  more,  and  likely 
less  than  one  thousand  converts,  which  fact  shows  that  the 
apostasy  was  not  so  great  in  1844-46,  as  has  been  pictured.  These 
statements  are  based  on  the  testimonv  of  orig^inal  members  of 
the  "Reorganization."  as  thev  testified  before  the  U.  S.  Court  of 
Appeals  for  the  Western  District  of  Missouri,  in  1894,  in  the 
Temple  Lot  suit,  which  was  for  the  possession  of  property  in 
the  hands  of  the  "Church  of  Christ"  or  "Hedrickites." 

Before  that  court  Mr.  William  W.  Blair,  who  for  many 
years  was  a  member  of  the  presidency  of  the  "Reorganization" 
and  who  was  one  of  its  oldest  members,  testified  that  "one 
thousand  was  probably  too  hi2;h  an  estimate  for  the  members 
of  the  original  church,  that  had  joined  the  Reorganized  church." 
He  could  "approximately  say"  that  one  thousand  had  joined  the 


"Reorganized  church,  and  possibly  that  estimate  was  too  large." 
Record  pp.  i8o,  i8i. 

William  Marks,  whose  testimony  is  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Evans,  was  also  one  of  those  who  joined  the  "Reorganization" 
in  an  early  day.  At  the  time  of  the  martyrdom  he  was  presi- 
dent of  the  Nauvoo  Stake,  but  was  disfellowshipped  for  trans- 
gression at  the  October  conference,  1844,  and  finally  excom- 
municated. Afterwards  he  joined  the  organization  under  James 
J.  Strang.  In  that  organization  he  became  a  "bishop,"  was  a 
member  of  the  "high  council,"  and  later  a  member  of  the  "first 
presidency."  After  the  death  of  James  J.  Strang,  he  joined  the 
organization  of  Charles  B.  Thompson,  another  apostate.  This 
is  the  same  William  Marks  who  "ordained"  Joseph  Smith,  of 
Lamoni,  president  of  the  "Reorganization."  In  that  ordination 
he  was  assisted  by  Zenas  H.  Gurley  and  William  W.  Blair, 
Mr.  Blair  never  belonged  to  the  Church.  It  is  almost  needless  j 
to  add  that  these  men  held  no  divine  authority  and  could  not  * 
bestow  the  Priesthood  and  officiate  in  the  ordinances  of  the 
Gospel,  and,  therefore,  the  pretentions  of  the  "Reorganized" 
church  are  fraudulent.  Judged  by  its  history,  doctrines  and  the 
unstable  character  of  its  founders  it  is  proved  to  be  a  counterfeit 
and  nothing  more. 

Considering  the  conditions  under  which  the  "Reorganiza- 
tion" came  into  existence,  and  the  fact  that  in  the  beginning 
the  original  one  hundred  members  came  from  the  Strangite 
church,  and  that  during  the  existence  of  that  organization  from 
its  foundation  to  1894,  not  more  than  one  thousand  members 
of  the  "original  church"  (i.e.  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter-day  Saints  as  it  stood  in  1844)  had  joined  it,  we  are  not 
to  be  blamed  if  we  declare  that  that  church  is  not  the  successor, 
a  faction  or  a  portion  of  the  "original  church"  founded  by 
Joseph  Smith  the  Prophet  through  the  command  of  God,  April 
6,  1830.  And  after  following  the  history  of  its  founders  and 
pointing  out  their  instability  and  the  manner  in  which  they 
followed  after  false  leaders,  receiving  "ordinations"  and  honors 
under  their  hands,  we  can  most  emphatically  declare  that  they 
were  not  the  faithful  who  did  "not  bow  the  knee  to  Baal,"  and 
who  kept  the  "everlasting  covenant." 




Blood  Atonement  and  the  Origin  of 
^  lural  Marriai^e . . 



UBRARY  BUREAU  CAT.  NO.  1175.3 


3  3300  00296  4000 



rn  the  United  itctes  of  America